Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Full Board of Supervisors 12815  SFGTV  December 8, 2015 6:00pm-12:01am PST

6:00 pm
was vociferous opposition to the golden gate bridge. san francisco's paid major role in rock 'n roll history and has no major rock 'n roll venue. coldplay and elton john and maj. groups play oakland and san jose. i cringe when i hear coldplay say, hello san jose. bernal heights complained about the noise from the rolling stones at at&t park. shamefully embarrassing this rock 'n roll city. the noise problem is a limited with a new arena. indoor arenas have better acoustics and outdoor. the warners offering an incredible
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
>> over several months ucsf
6:05 pm
worked with city and the warriors and made concrete transit and transportation management measures. to facilitate access to our hospital. with a specific focus on weekday, evening events, when this baseball or a large event at the warriors arena. in october, our chancellor acknowledged agreement with the city and the warriors and endorse the project. ucsf endorsement reflects our satisfaction with the transit and transportation measures adopted by the city and the warriors. ucsf believes the transportation infrastructure is currently planned in the area combined with specific actions are adopted by the city and the warriors will facilitate access to our mission bay hospital. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. actually evening out. thank you for your
6:06 pm
tv timeout. i am-20 years living here in san francisco. and three years in mission bay where the originals in mission bay sock. over the past three years i've seen a lot of change and in that change, it's been wonderful. great people. amazing dogs everywhere. unity government would i have not seen is improvements in transportation. two places to be. any kind of [inaudible] in the neighborhood even the starbucks is close on evenings and weekends even though it's been a residential building. so, in my humble opinion, this warriors project really is what our neighborhood needs in order to create a positive change in these areas. the appeal is really about transportation sangha focus on that. getting to mission bay,-definitely, without a doubt can we handle more traffic during commute hours i was absolutely not.
6:07 pm
muni even today is more like move over sardines were coming in. with or without the events it's going to increase. were not even 4% occupied as far as residential. the question is whether [inaudible] and other social activities committee members participate in was going to be more opposite buildings as the previous speaker said. for me, i hope it's going to be something that could help rebuild the neighborhood. that's plan already include transportation permits we are a desperately need today. so, let's not forget it will offer jobs, entertainment opportunities, friends and also places to eat hopefully. also for those people, family members and friends were visiting people at the ucsf hospital. there's nowhere for them to go in order to get away and take a break. thank you for your time and as an aside remember we are
6:08 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is david lombardi and 11 omission. muscle football report pack of other sports for espn. i think i, this project from a two-sided ankle. first is a resident and then obviously for my professional life. as a resident of san francisco i can say having always lived here this always been a city that is inspired me because i'm from three hours awake was about 10 years old, in 1998, my dad drove me to san francisco. went to watch that child's bite at candlestick park and the gloomy downtown or near the area of downtown were at&t park now this. is abandoned warehouse. it was discussed amid tense ever. it just looked not an area that could make what i think is the most beautiful city in america and one most beautiful cities in the world crowd so close to the center of everything i get lonely that barry bonds is going be hitting
6:09 pm
homeruns here in just about 3-4 years. i did not leave him at the time. but now we fast-forward about 20 years and we see with that area has become aware it's going to become in the future still so much more development happening in south beach. so, i think what we have here with this warriors arena project is very similar to what we had potentially with at&t park and we can make this into a great area of san francisco. the warriors are totally committed to creating a world-class venue that the city really needs and for my professional perspective, it's ridiculous that you could be in the city this great and not have an event center that really suits the city of this kind. finally, a spoken a couple of these other meetings and i can say that there've been hardly any opposition members until today izzy this long line of people waiting to speak on. we had this turnout
6:10 pm
was every single meeting so far. so the words are first-class organization and the done that many organizing to make sure this should happen. thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for allowing me to begin to share my opinion regarding the proposed warrior arena public spaces by. a project such as this [inaudible] i feel compelled to come out of my comfort zone and stand up to speak on its behalf. my name is andrea olsen and i live in hate. i believe the project before you would benefit the city and the neighborhood greatly providing tax revenue which would not exist but for this project. while not burdening the residence of san francisco. the tax revenues will be set aside to improve public transportation and the lessening of the severity of the traffic in the mission neighborhood. i also believe the completed project with its parks among its retail,
6:11 pm
it's beautiful vistas and walkways, along with the arena for the warrior and for other events will become a major destination for friends, family, visitors and maybe filmmakers. to our city. please, design that allow the project to move forward as a lifelong golden state warrior fan, i thank you for your time and your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is teresa. i'm with al zender real estate. we have developed owned and maintained all of the mission bay life sciences buildings to date. we work very closely with the mission bay life science community because they are our tenants. we met several times with the warriors and we are incredibly impressed the professionalism, how
6:12 pm
carefully they listened to all the concerns and issues the life science community brought to them. they just each and every one of them to such an extent that we all came together and jointly issued a statement that support to them. with 19 firms, i believe it was. we are here to say, you should reject this appeal and we support the project. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is george anderson denominator the san franciscan and have it working in san francisco as a dentist for the last 24 years. i grew up in the city and had the good fortune of seeing a change from old shipyards and desolate land to the vibrant community it is today. just like the vibrance of the city people. it is our committee that should be reflected in how we shape the building of the city. it is the
6:13 pm
building of the city that only represents us but also the diversity and the tourist that visit us. to keep it short, i bought a few points i respectfully would like you to consider when making a decision. number one, housing is overpriced. this budget winzip 25 million and affordable has. even the most educated are struggling with the increases in rent prices. housing in particular is important. to consider given the court housing market increase brought on by the growth of the tech industry the project things more retail and chance are small business opportunities in the city. new architecture, retail spaces and restaurants increases the attractiveness to potential taurus. it also brings $40 million in transit imprudence, which would benefit the whole surrounding neighborhood. as a son of an immigrant father the drove a muni bus for 30 years, to put three kids through school
6:14 pm
i so would've meant to be afforded an opportunity in this beautiful city. when discussing the future of the city we should not forget that all residents should continue to be afforded opportunities from education and job opportunities to being part of the cultural expense of the city. we of san franciscans can move forward with the projects that touch the lives of our residents. i believe that the warriors building project does that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, board of supervisors. my name is antoinette mobley. i'm a resident of bayview hunters point. a proud resident of bayview hunters point. the warriors, i've been a fan since my childhood. so the big number 40, we did it. now, we get an opportunity to bring this world-class event stating here
6:15 pm
on behalf of the golden state warrior. i mean that's unprecedented. i believe that wholeheartedly. there isn't very much lifestyle going on in the bayview. we all get together when we can and we enjoyed ourselves together, but there isn't a place like this proposed plan where we can be outdoors, bring some development and, have jobs, have places for families to come. that's really a keyword. you guys have to understand this. families in bayview hunters point have waited a long time for a plan like this to come its way. the 49ers, unfortunately, have no nine home games. that's it. this can be 365 days a year of events. people brag about san francisco. they can do more than that. with a world-class,
6:16 pm
seven days a week, event center. so i really want you guys to throw out all that nonsense that those opponents abroad to you today and just consider what we supporters are sharing with you. i want to thank the warriors and sfmta and oci i and everybody involved in this plan for bringing this and making this happen. you guys have done the next optional job. thank you supervisor cohen to make sure everyone answers questions that i'm sure some of you do not think about. that means we have such a >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is-i want to thank the supervisors staying awake listening to the long line of people. i want to perspective the woman who just was speaking she mentioned that families. things to do. i probably crossed to this lot at 16th and
6:17 pm
third over 8-12 times a week. from where i live going up in mission bay. i walk through the lot, the parking lot that is that. that's quick to generate a whole lot of money. i see all the leads. i ride my bike i walk along [inaudible]. what would this project means? this one live in the whole area. parks, amounting to about 4.5 football fields. over on terry françois. the activity, the restaurants the money, hiring people to build this, to maintain it, to work it. people coming in. we have great restaurants shops down in dogpatch on third street. people come to the event. they come down to dogpatch. and the bayview. all these area. where families are. things we can do. i went to a
6:18 pm
meeting sponsored by the dogpatch neighborhood association. these people were here the alliance people. everybody spoke. i heard the last people bringing up the same point. page 100 of the eir. which was rebutted by the traffic people. why are they going back in, turn up questions that were answered already? because they don't have much of anything. this is something san francisco needs. something that would enrich us all. it will bring the region into san francisco instead of spreading it out around the bay. thank you all so much >> the tango next speaker, please. >> good evening supervise. san francisco railroad and former member of the cac. i am supportive of the warriors project although i grew up in washington dc and can still give her the remember rick perry aye. one of the things i did
6:19 pm
notice in the eir or lack of when they discuss what they were going to do with her meeting the site, getting rid of the hazardous materials. they talk about charging-or trucking it across the bay over the bay bridge. now just think for a second that's 20,000 truck trips. that's the same amount of trucks to go over the bridge from-in five years. so where's want to do that in three months. i don't know why they did not look around and see there might be some other sustainable options could san francisco is a freight rail. it taken stuff from transfigured from mission bay they can do it on a third amount of time. so, looking at that that was sort
6:20 pm
of funky for me but local hiring, is big keeping stuff in the city,. i mean, that's a big big thing for me. so encourage the warriors and supervisors to look at that. in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is big. if you want to be great stewards of the committee and really higher from the community and local hiring that kind of thing i would consider those items. thank you, supervisors? thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is pete-also business owner in san francisco. i am here to represent national association of minority contractors. local chapter president. we have over 100 contractors, small minority contractors at the bayview district and also throughout the san francisco. this is a huge project for us. billed by minority contractors and small comedies they give an opportunity to generate
6:21 pm
revenues, grow their business. scale up because in san francisco, as far as the warriors are concerned there were the best corporate citizens. they join our organization and they came to our event we hosted it and met with contractors, small contractors and emerging contractors and talk about some of the opportunities. contours will contain jumps. members and nonnumeric for the higher from the community. they will get give back to the communities. so, i'm here to support and don't miss out on the opportunity on building the warrior-i think this is history being made. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i missed her son. were raised by three teenage children in the building that looks out into the arena said. are big supporters of the arena. when we made the decision three years ago to
6:22 pm
move into mission bay south was a leap of faith. the neighbor was undeveloped that we believed the big cities do big things. we believe great cities do great things. we were certain san francisco to make mission bay a great place. i think were well on track but was incredible gift when the warriors arena well exceeded our expectations did i do think anybody moves into an undeveloped neighborhood whether to live or build or to work should be surprised when things change. that was the whole plan was changed. it's disingenuous to think you can control all the change that surrounds you. we can all indigenous public-at and create a great plan and the warriors of the thoughtless partners and listening to concerns. naturally, we are concerned about transit traffic and congestion. we live there every day. the plan that they've
6:23 pm
developed, not only am i supportive of it but what i like about it is the flexibility they have built into it. so, if not just a one and done because you can foresee all of the impacts of a huge moment like this. i don't think anybody can. but what we can do is best pan and place now and keep working together. that's what i think is happening here is fabulous spot [inaudible] is critical. thank you very much. please eject the pure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisor michael-case number there some attrition the building trades were substantial [inaudible] but to honor persistence of those remain innocent to stand, you. carpenters, electricians, stand up if you please but we remain supportive the spot. heaven for quite a while. on the various points in the environmental impact report appeal, the question of tossing our member
6:24 pm
10 years ago this entire site was excavated to a depth of 20 feet. i'm that desperate assertion this is marson made essentially but you all know well for decades this was the site of railyards in warehouses and eight tank farm. i think mr. albert has very adequate just the fear mongering of the mission bay alliance with regard to trust. i'm though much less technical understanding of it includes a recollection that a steady much larger than it is now coexisted happily with ucsf two blocks away with nothing virtually but street parking and served public transit primarily with a single course for many many years. i don't think mothers of the time rendered less likely to care about the children in the hospital care than they are now the politicians were unlikely to pay attention to their please. i think that's a bogus issue and i think mr. albert has shown that it is. so, one other thing. he asked
6:25 pm
me to pass along that the labor council also remains supportive of the positive psu to reject the appeal and to prove the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is patricia britt number residence of the dogpatch. i'm here in support of the warriors arena. i feel the project is very important because, partially because of the warrior's commitment to improving the neighborhood. right now, as you've heard other speakers say, there is very little for us to do in our neighborhood. we have to go to other areas of the city for entertainment. we feel this project will bring a lot of activity to our neighborhood which would be great for us. i
6:26 pm
think that it will also provide many positive economic benefits to mission bay and to the dogpatch. the level of community outreach on the warrior's behalf has been exceptional. i've never spoken at a public hearing before. i've never felt strongly about a project and wanted to show my support for it but i felt welcome to do that through the warriors organization. and i feel very appreciative of the opportunity to be here. i look forward to attending the events at the facility and also to enjoin the parks and bike paths in this running area and i hope you will reject the appeal and bring the warriors home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervised. joel-logical workers local six and san francisco electrical factors labor and management within our industry is both fully cured support of the project. we urge you to reject the appeal. we've attended neighborhood meetings. we've attended the commission meetings. all of them. all of
6:27 pm
them. we know how much time and resources have gone into this project specifically. we trust that has done its due diligence to bring forth all the facts and might i add that all the commissions and hearings prior were all moving this forward unanimously. so, we think that the project site is extremely utilized with accommodation of event center and commercial and open space and will have a highly positive social impact on the city as a opiate again, were here in full support of the project and i urge you to tonight keep you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is carlos-i'm the owner of insightful market. home of some of the best passports party events in bay area. i'm sure supervisor tang can attest to the pure we work with over 150 food trucks. and we bring them to events all over the place. i hope supervisor seek out his
6:28 pm
enjoin the food trucks at the presidio. so i'm here whenever senate supports this new arena. six months ago the mission bay we give him an agency reached out to me because there was a need, as a lot of these neighbors have attested, there's a big need for new businesses and activities to go on in mission bay neighborhoods and i'm happy to say that i actually just signed a lease to open up a new food truck parked in mission bay and if it wasn't for the news of the warriors coming down there that probably would not have happened. no, that i am proof of the change in the neighborhood and the economic benefits that you guys will receive in mission bay. no, now with that six months of working with mission bay is a line of new small businesses wanting to come in. so, i fully support the stadium. thank you.
6:29 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> on behalf of 5000 members represent, i have a bunch might brothers in the overflow room. we urge you to reject the proposal and support the warriors. we really like to build the stadium. we you were one of the first local to the sport local hires and i think it's good to bring a lot of jobs to the local san franciscans to be working on that stating. i urge you got to supportive. thanks >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening matter president and members of the board my name is brian-i'm here tonight speak in behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. like to draw your attention to some of ice complements a part of this project. including infrastructure improvements the
6:30 pm
sickening sight and terry françois boulevard part of our greenway. vision two interceptor permits the were project is committed to bicycle safety and education programming . by parking at this arena will be worth class video featured over 300 valley park spaces of two 500 and/or secure ike parking space. some you may know we operate bicycle valet parking at at&t park and that is 150 spaces and we routinely turned folks wait at at&t products. we been working without warriors for over a year in discussions to look at the bicycle impacts of this project. i think were very pleased with where things abandoned all. we recognize also, bicycle improvements and access issues will continue to be something were discussing after the arena opens and with the for to continuing those conversations and work with the warriors into the future. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please.
6:31 pm
>> good evening, supervised. my name is jesse woodward. i'm here to support the arena. forgive my experience as a small business owner in san francisco. i own a restaurant and bar in district 8. the bar that i own happens to be a sports bar and happens to be the only sports bar orientated tour the lgbt community in san francisco. we've worked closely with the warriors. we've host a lot of watch parties for the games. including playoffs which the proceeds of which benefited the warriors muni foundation. the source of nba hsinchu championship trophies that after i took a trip down market street during the pride parade. what this shows the warriors have been engaged and listen to lgbt committees throughout this arena project. as a san francisco resident i support having a world-class arena and many purposes not just basketball. having so much business to the mission bay. enter the city. i personally
6:32 pm
look forward to being able to ride my bike to games and concerts without having to go through traffic bart schedules that such. it will benefit the mission bay immensely. it'll provide open space that amused by everyone. we kill that will be all your own not only during events, and the were submitted clear everyone in san francisco will be welcome and will benefit from this project in mission bay. none of our reach the warriors have done, the due diligence and have it that the whole city involved in the process is incomparable. i've been to several meetings with her were concerns and work with all the groups and work out any- personally came to the merchants meeting which i'm a part of an answer the questions. unanimously decided to support the project. as is all the other neighborhood groups. i just wanted to thank you and support this arena. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, board of supervisors. i think you've are
6:33 pm
still being away. i am a 13 year residence of the south of market and i'm a native of san francisco. i moved from in the area in pacific heights, where there was open space. if i felt like walking to a park it was there. if i felt like going to a café it was there. if i felt like doing something that her things to do that. i did move into south of market knowing there were things coming down the pike like some and also, change was inevitable. but when the warriors-when i heard about the warriors project, i said i need to jump into this. we really need open space. i'm work from home so here's my day. i work out and i crash into techies on their devices. that's my excitement. i've no place to sit to work outside of my house. it would be great to
6:34 pm
sit in the open space that they're proposing to offer us. a lot of the points that people mentioned have artie been but i want to mention-what i want to say is i urge you to really approve this arena. we really need it in our community and i thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. by ms. kathy cearley. by feeling i live in mission bay south next door to the post arena site. results not only to watch the world's best basketball team play and her own backyard to attend the family shows, special funds, hold events, concerts that we can take our kids to. as a child, some of my best family memories were going to see the harlem globetrotters and the ice capades with my own parents. recently, the san francisco chronicle reported step. is rapidly gaining international
6:35 pm
attention. he was rated as the most influential man in the world is quickly becoming the best possible role model for today's youth. the article goes on to say the warriors are becoming-this is sunday's article-they becoming the coolest most talked about must see show in sports. we should be counting our blessings they want to privately fund this project and settle in mission bay. for over 20 months now, the warriors have shown an aggressive community our reach into mission bay. they've not only become our friend. they've won our hearts might gain their trust, confidence, loyalty and support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisor. personal i like to congratulate borders on winning another game tonight. second monica scott van hundred 11.patch listen to but from project site. before begin my own comments, i was
6:36 pm
asked by the.patch neighborhood association for the board of directors to deliver this letter to specifically supervisor cohen but it seems like you guys have already addressed a lot of the things in there and appreciate that. i'm not speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. i'm here on my own. so, the reason i'm here today is to voice my full support for this project to plot the warriors on the neighborhood outreach they've done and to make it clear to mission bay alliance is not reflective community. mission bay alliance is not glossing grassroots organization that is not an organizing created just this past spring by some billionaires and some guys with phd's. none of the members of the alliance bother to show up to any-two. any of the seven public hearings last month i was
6:37 pm
there. my neighbors were there at the committee was there instead estimates were all led by hired spokespeople. for example, at the oci i eir hearing, over 40 people spoke in only three of them were in favor of the project of those three opposed to them were patent lawyers. meanwhile, the warriors have stood the last three years integrate listening and adapting the project based on community feedback. i urge you to deny the mission bay alliances request to appeal the eir. the worst of showing their great asset to the community are committed to surrounding neighborhoods and were equally committed to making the project a reality for our neighborhoods in the city. think you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening minus patrick ballantine at present of the south beach mission bay merchants association. muscle local residents and i think as of to go to almost every single of the meeting that's come up for this site going back to 3032, probably 2012. what i've
6:38 pm
seen is the committee input evolve of this project. the community support for the project has been broad. it has been diverse. it's been local. we've got quite a deep bench on the community site as well. what has happened is project has come about this create a sense for mission bay. the biggest objections to the project have been met head on. i think it's very important to consider peer we've spent a lot of time tonight hearing from the city, from consultants, from staff talking about with the difficulties are and how to solve them for this project. the committee has come and spoken it evolves over time, and the response has been-we have a project that's keyed up to be excellent. the opponents have been tight they were sent
6:39 pm
consultant to the staff public comments the patent lawyers tonight. they challenge the eir before it even came out. this is a rigorous two until the cows come home for the public had a chance to provide the incremental impact report i think that tells you where they're coming from. as a practicing lawyer for over 22 years, most with my client if the other side brags about how much they're paying their lawyers and the rest to you for ever they have no case. i think it's been proven tonight is they have no case. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you good i'm dennis mckinsey diamond resulting education. san francisco public high school for 14 years. i sent you an e-mail in support of the confirmation of the eir report. to certify that i am asking you to take every step
6:40 pm
necessary to work with both sides. rb sigman does a lot of critical issues. but you also my respect what i want to share briefly address the warriors message collaborate [inaudible] i think the arena in itself the structure much of the time it will be vacant. the events, of course 150 events, bask all games veteran nick and service and educational facility a university, if you will for the high school and college kids in the city. i mentioned this many times. all the commissions and supervisors for many years. the proposal i have to share with you is asking that the warriors support this proposal in some kind so we can use this as a model to reach out to all the cities and committees across the country utilizing the power and influence and inspiration that kids get from professional sports. these facilities, once again, multimedia journalism, the operations of these
6:41 pm
facilities, but all potential career pathways. thank you much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supermarket tony kelly vp of boosters association at the boosters have no official position on the arena project or the eir but we do want to raise concerns on the record about one particular aspect of the eir and that issue is soil mitigated is a lot of toxic contamination of the soil underneath the proposed arena. it describes well in the mitigation plan and it goes well past 20 feet. when the warriors met with obama committee we were told contaminated soil would be directly called to toxic wayside. now in eir the toxins was retreated on site first and then trucked to local landfills but we disagree with that approach. is this in the case of soil that's contaminated with hydrocarbons for carbons.
6:42 pm
three substantial given the location is right next to a big union oil tank farm. we don't believe on-site we don't believe it was that we believe it's always the project and expose neighborhoods to undue risk. we've seen this in other projects in the neighborhood south of market. that we raise the concerns with the warriors with a better plan for soil handling and city transit improvements but i'll mention on another agenda item for his project could get stronger neighborhood support. i want to at the commons murray has been she couldn't stick around at this time and these are her words. it is my considered opinion that green action that often there's an issue or question and the answer is unclear it's best to err on the side of community. it's best when oil is found in soil that's picked up and moved out never to be used again. we also understand that this method may be a bit more costly. however, were taught by the many lives of community families that live adjacent to come across from, up the street and down the street of this particular area.
6:43 pm
it started to follow the progress of this venture closely sooner where without a doubt the community in increments of community is speaking with one voice. i think you on behalf of myself green action and environment subcommittee. thank you for bearing both of us >> thank you. before i moved to the next speaker, i just want to remind members of the public who are here for public comment, that this is for those members of the public who oppose the appeal and support the project. thank you. next speaker, please. >> mimes olivia smith and am the managing form of of trucking llc. while we do support the warriors coming to san francisco we'd also like to see if, in fact we could get the trucking for the hazardous waste local going to the rail. we know that they have had other problems in the past with trucking over to east they and the other half of the space. we would like to keep that work here for our company. we been
6:44 pm
badly in need of hazardous work to transport dirt within the city and would like to see if we can continue to do that work and hopefully the warriors will consider us. >> thank you. speak next speaker, please. >> i'm fred-i represented [inaudible] in san francisco wheeled transportation committee that serves san francisco since 1992. we fully support this warriors arena were looking for to helping them assist them with their contaminated soil needs. we have been successful in moving over 1,000,000-2,000,000 tons of hazardous waste over the last 20 some odd years. this would treatment process is never really worked throughout the project that we worked with over the years, we certainly would like to help the warriors
6:45 pm
to fray from putting over 20,000 truckloads on the bainbridge we have a ton of traffic problems already we been successful worked with the san francisco giants moving contaminate soil from that site as well as pg&e and other large companies. to afford to this new arena and helping with the project. we do employ all 1% local truckers at our company. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> and president, supervisors, my name is neil oshman. brisson of mission bay both my wife and i overly support the warriors arena. it's been a long process from the beginning the warriors have done it right. they worked with residents and other stakeholders to address legitimate concerns. they have crossed all the t's and dotted the eyes. this is the last step and i would hope the board ignores the argument submission date alliance improves the eir because for every bluster all the attorneys they've hired, and all the work they've done unsuccessfully, to show that
6:46 pm
san francisco doesn't really support the arena, fundamentally, they're just a bunch of-the board by such in san francisco should not be held hostage to believe they and only they know what's what's best for the suit. by the way not on property i covet >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is dj deputy director and committee developers a nonprofit organization in bayview. i'm here to speak on behalf of moving the project forward in full support of the warriors and also i would like to say but immediate supervisor and executive director mr. watson apologized for not being able to be here with him being a commissioner on the school board is doing his due diligence to the voters of san francisco at a school board meeting currently. briefly, i want to shut out a brief story and talks about the leadership and teamwork that we've seen with the warriors over the last three years. was one of the first we had in the dogpatch
6:47 pm
and i introduced to gentlemen who introduced himself as mr. rick welch and him with the golden state warriors. know what that means to me is someone whose humble and someone who exemplifies leadership and teamwork and we've seen it not only on the court with the worst having 23-0 in due diligence with working with the community and alternate members here with oci we wg and all the stakeholders and over the course of the season, we've been able to employ and serve over 152 residents from district 10. we serve populations of homeless from the incarcerated those on promotion probation or parole. was seeking employment with second income along with seniors and folks who currently retirees. that's what the warriors are doing now in oakland. just imagine how much more were going to be with you was that move across the bridge and we thoroughly urge you all to continue to push and move
6:48 pm
forward with this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is john hale and the second-generation san franciscan. i'm also a homeowner of a-i live five blocks from the proposed arena. i'm also warriors season-ticket holder. to those who had traffic concerns i can assure you all be walking to the games. one must car you have to worry about. my experience with peanut warriors season-ticket holder has been fantastic. i can tell their first-class organization by the way they treat us. i'm also a season-ticket holder to the niners and i would never say that about them. i think this arena is going to be great for our neighborhood. i think in serve as a catalyst same way at&t park gipper south beach i think you bring much-needed services. within walking distance for the residents. so i urge you to deny this appeal the eir and that this project
6:49 pm
move forward. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is sheila ash and i'm a long-term residence of winona valley and happy holiday. it took moses 40 years to cross the desert. will it take 40 years for the words to come to san francisco? i was drawn to the team by their -i maintained an interest by the prowess. i reference [inaudible] animalia rigidity. sweatshirts are not my style. so, i give you my designer where to team it has my respect and full attention. and could
6:50 pm
not be prouder to host them in a city that i love so dearly. my fashion and passion for the warriors is clear. so, please bring them here. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervised. how are you doing this evening? today i'm here to discuss my strong support for the warriors and missionary. from an environmental perspective this we want most [inaudible] arenas in the country. it will emphasize sustainability in every aspect and design. for example, the project storm water we treated on-site. those being on-site recycle system. to be a first-round nba arena. as part of 89 or compliance the
6:51 pm
warriors have agreed to 1% of the carbon omissions another first for the arena. lastly san francisco bike ocean recently called for this project was bike friendly sports venue in the country i urge you to deny the camille and stammer the committee and not just a handful of people. we've seen appeals go again people mention the niners and that stupid what time would take more time we would chance to lose this. let's not lose this for our city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, thank you for your time this evening. my name is christopher hoff and i work in mission bay is a consulting manager for small restaurant group. here obviously in support of the warriors project and to reject the appeal. you are barking started 15 years group with a single copy got a new cs parnassus campus. when
6:52 pm
ucsf target mission bay as an expanding neighbor could forgive us were among the first beverage vendors to move in of we the pleasure of uca but proactive entity driven program being supervised like ucsf the warriors have exhibited a proactive and to me first approach to addressing concerns and challenges regarding this issue. the main opposition for this project has come from the mission bay alliance. initially their platforms and around protecting ucsf interest. ucsf ultimately endorsed this project they'll find that argument for the allies then shift his message project mission base biotech companies. although 13 of the largest and fastest-growing have now signed on to the project as well. to our restaurant to work with these companies with ucsf and residents in mission bay everyday and i can say that any
6:53 pm
opposition to this arena can only be characterized as oxidant. the part that has to go through. progress is inevitable. nothing is going to be perfect but the warriors have proven themselves a proactive organization interested in responding and listening to the needs of the community. i guess that's it. one note. we all know social and cultural equity opening sports franchise brings to a city. the warriors have proven their winners both on the court and off the court. i feel we would be forced to pass up the opportunity to harness their winning culture as a partner for the mission bay neighborhood. but spring the warriors home. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervised my name is chris-resident of los altos in the south bay. i previously served on the environmental commission in my city and i thank you for all the work that you do. i just want to echo the sentiments of other supporters that showed been impressive to see the city staff, supervisors different commissions of worked without
6:54 pm
warriors organization you can see this right playbook perpetual sports groups in north america. i just want to say that no eir is perfect and nothing scored to common any group especially when of the scale, and have no concerns or issues. what really matters is the level and confidence of the groups you're working with. and whether not they are capable of being flexible and nimble and being able to work with a city like san francisco to get this approved and with rick welch being a world-class organization they have nothing been shown to their collaboration jack o'connor organization they are [inaudible]. i also want to say i'm the father of four girls. i have no sons. i make them sit and watch sports with me throughout the year. they love to do. they love to have their
6:55 pm
stay up later and snuggle with that and we watched warriors games. raising kids is all about creating social family memories and taking my daughters to this proposed arena i look forward to grade. i asked for your continued support for this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is jasmine conrad and i'm one of the many organizers for the warriors which is a coalition that is brought you a lot of people have seen you today. if past years. it's been an honor and privilege to be part of organizing this community. but even more importantly i was born and raised so spent absolute honor thus far. over the past 1.5 year we had opportunities to identify and engage with 5000+ supporters in san francisco and surrounding neighborhoods of mission bay.patch my bayview and over
6:56 pm
the past year and half those supporters have transitions into a warriors ground commanders. they transition to some of our closest friends and assume we have transitioned into our neighbors. taken my organizer hat off for a moment as a native is difficult to see a city you grew up and changing rapidly, but i think that looking at this project and what it has to offer the clinic gives me hope there's a strong community in san francisco and is a very strong voice nothing better coalition is composed of the people that resemble the san francisco that i grew up with. so it's an absolute honor to be will to stand with them today in support of this project to reject the appeal of the eir. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello supervised. my name is sebastian-the reader letter on behalf of [inaudible] what was your earlier. he's a member of the asian american
6:57 pm
contractors association as well as the california asian-american business association. after my name is matthew was born and raised in the western addition of native) is owned a london business in the heart of the bayview. i spent a majority of my youth working there. now it's business owner and general contractors fight as an [inaudible] and located in the bayview. we also work with many local san francisco agencies and local residents for the past 30. presently working with the bayview opera house. please approve the new stadium for san francisco residents sports fans an opportunity within the bayview district. two point part of this new endeavor and with this new business avenue for entrepreneurs the warriors, >> next speaker, please.
6:58 pm
>> i'm here to support the warrior stadium. the project will provide jobs for our neighborhood. our community we are committed to hiring local guys that live in the bayview. the guys that live there that are born and raised. we are committed. what part of 261 the operators. we are committed to the training program. this project will benefit our neighbors, our new members. and folks that live with us and work with us. i'm here in
6:59 pm
support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am here tonight to read a letter to have a bruce i get was here but had to go and share the tj pa meeting. my name is bruce i could. i'm a transportation rep. and board member of the south beach mission bay neighborhood association and a member of the ballpark mission bay transportation coronation committee. however, today i provide my public comment of the mission bay. very pleased to see the approach taken by the warriors jesus traffic and overall congestion. although this a very complex set of issues the warriors working with the city and ucsf {the charges and developed an approach an agreement. in
7:00 pm
addition to performing a thorough eir the party listen very closely to the concerns of the residents and businesses in and around mission bay. based on this we have come to an agreement on several fronts to ensure transportation and other quality of life issues are resolved through the integrated approach. this approach includes the following: development of in-depth transportation and travel mitigation plan. the committed secured funding source. transportation improvement bond and lockbox secures funding necessary to provide the services. funding for this budget is taken directly from revenue generated-[inaudible] critical to ensure services are provided without impacting service doubles in other parts of the city. stakeholder involvement. the creation of the transportation improvement fund advisory committee consisting of represents from each stakeholder group will assist in setting priorities to meet women in summary this is
7:01 pm
robust and thorough [inaudible] funding mechanism stakeholder citizen review, accountability and [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. my name is jackie flynn. i'm the executive director of the randolph institute am here with my program manager kirk ryan. >> good evening, everyone. >> first of all, let me say thank you to you guys. to all your commitment to our city our community. these are long thankless hours maybe your never told we generally appreciate you all. i appreciate you receive for being here tonight. you know, firsthand and a project this size is going to have a major impact on the communities we also. i want to recognize who came out earlier today for both together with over 100
7:02 pm
committee members each of the committees that we serve. as you can see, were trying to keep our eyes open but it's a long road and we continue to march ahead. we are here because we are warriors. we also stand in solidarity with our union brothers and sisters as you know we work closely with our trades to create sustainable careers for young women and men and women from bayview.i also know who provide it's great to hear this project is going to bring improvements as well as hundreds of local jobs.i really appreciate the warriors have shown that i could use a mentor and model to young men and women that could inspire such a great company like the golden state warriors. so thank you again and i'm in
7:03 pm
support of this project and encourage you guys to oppose the proposal. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, every impure money ms. lily-and i am a residence of mission bay. i also own a small business on the high-tech space and have a located in mission bay. i'm here to support the warriors project. i think that creates a project that is going to modernize san francisco and contribute to the beauty of the city that we already have and now were going to have the facility of a world-class entertainment center. i think
7:04 pm
that this project will also bring the community together. it's more than just a sports arena. it's going to be an entertainment center. it's going to have a part where residents can travel to locally with public transportation to concerts and local events. i think this is a huge improvement to our infrastructure as well to the city in terms of what we have an expanding the projects that we need to work on for transportation. and facility improvement and things like that. lastly, i think this is going to be great for the san francisco economy. i'm not a native of san francisco. i moved here because of my career , and i invested into properties in mission bay. that is an example of my
7:05 pm
contribution to the economy in mission bay. i think it's good to create jobs. not only in the development of this project as well as maintaining this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. next speaker, please. >> good evening mme. supervisors and supervisors. the mission bay alliance are deniers. they've taken some typical issuesbut there's two items that come out to me is very important method transportation and also the accessibility of patients to the hospital. however, the ucsf is a state of art children's hospital with a helipad. so, these are the helicopter will not be limited by having a sports arena in the neighborhood. also two very
7:06 pm
happy those $25 million to afford housing will be part of this developer agreements. $40 million as part of the transportation infrastructure contribution. also, what makes a livable there would for the warriors project? diverse. the warriors provides a range of jobs shops and services supporting diverse local businesses. the warriors arena supports the physical and mental health of its residents, clean and safe and promote social mobility. green. the warriors arena is well served by parks, playgrounds, pauses, greenways, trees and plant these are integrated into street designs. buildings are designed to provide public open space am a comeback cards terraces and greenways. i urge
7:07 pm
you to reject the appeal and support this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervise. money ms. joann desmond and him and assistant business agent with theatrical staging local 16. i'm here on behalf of the over 2000-we are in support of the new warriors arena commission may between the sporting event entertainment events and conventions, the arena will benefit not only local 16, but for thousands of workers in san francisco. we currently have almost 1000 members who live in san francisco. these are members who live in your district, the sender children to our schools and support our local businesses. these jobs, complete with benefits will ensure our families to continue
7:08 pm
to live and work here. we urge your support on this worthwhile project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. kim hi. good evening. my name is john-local residents of mission bay. am here tonight in support of the warriors project. clearly though warriors have shown great attitude listening to the community needs and it is the project will provide many jobs for the locals and for various union workers and for the community. so, i urge you to reject the appeal and support the project. have a good evening >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervise. my name is thomas mcdonough and i lived in san francisco since the late 1970s. i'm here today as a supporter of this project. the warriors have shown impressive commitment to
7:09 pm
collaboration and planning this arena project. they literally have committee stakeholders present and updating at the mission bay business advisory committee and they seek input on various businesses including ucsf. and agreed to stop the warriors project the opposition mission bay alliance, has invested four separate law firms that have [inaudible] other constituents to stop the project. the venture capitalists behind the curtain are used to getting-used to using lawyers to get their way. this appeal is not about the environment. it's about a few rich people taught us how the city should be run could i urge you to deny the appeal and allow the project to go ahead. i think, from listen to the
7:10 pm
presentation this evening, and listening to the tremendous success of the warriors have had on the courts in the last year, year and a half most certainly, you can see operationally also that this is a fabulous entity. a great city should be get together with a fabulous entity such as the warriors. hughes also seen some creative thoughts of the arena could be used so for educational purpose. when it's not being utilized. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public alike to provide public comment at this time? >>[reading] public, disclosed >>[gavel] ? now the council 3 min. for a rebuttal. >> thank you supervise. tom or the mission bay alliance. patrick arden is with me to turnover to him. the process
7:11 pm
here is one both political and legal. a lot of what you've heard about today is poetical information and legal information is of a different character. you've heard from the planning staff members very good at opening a rosy picture of what can happen out there once this project is operational , but it's harder to be glib about what the document actually says. as with the legal parts of this whole process comes into play. so, i want to give you an example talk about transit impact since it was a topic of discussion by the city employees. if we take the scenario of a giants game in the impact on muni transit service, the impact tr-13 is less than significant mitigation. so what's the mitigation? the mitigation measure to accommodate muni
7:12 pm
transit demand stems from the project in 18 project on the light rail during overlapping projects on social work with the coordinating committee to do some things. that's a mitigation for a process to happen not for a result be obtained. so, in sql parlance, legal apartment that's an unenforceable mitigation that does not actually ensure that the impact is less than significant. you don't have the evidence to make a finding that impact is less than significant would mitigation. if you go to another scenario, both with and without a giants game, regional transit services impacts on cal tran and then on the ferry system, you have that finding that a significant and unavoidable would mitigation. so, what does that mean? welcome you to look at the mitigation and again is the
7:13 pm
project sponsor shall work with the ballpark mission bay transportation corning committee. again, a process, not a result. if you go to the fight about on affordability it says provision of additional services uncertain and full funding for the services yet to be identified. that's because the mitigation was unenforceable. the was no provision for the sponsor to pay for the additional service that's needed. so, you can't bootstrap one legal provision to find out on affordability. it's hard to be glib about the document. you have to look at what it says. >> briefly, issue on the issue of enforceability or lack thereof, we'll party essentially concedes transportation management plan is unenforceable claims there's a backup. this mitigation measure tra team usa look at it, it states about performance standards are not met essentially, the warriors need to try again. that's all. >> thank you. okay, with that
7:14 pm
this hearing has been held and this hearing has been conducted. so, this hearing is now closed >>[gavel] ? this matters in hand of the board of supervisors. so, i have a question for staff. based on the presentation the questions in the lumpiness of this particular hearing, and some of the feedback is there any additional information presented by the opponents that you want to respond to at this time?? yes, thank you. >> yes, thank you. just a few issues i want to respond to. with respect to hazardous material and water quality impacts the pounds at the hearing today analytic results from sediment sampling from
7:15 pm
storm water drains the project area. it's not appear that the actual sediment sampling locations were documented in the materials. regardless, those would be reflection of existing conditions today. not a result of the proposed project. seek was concerned about the effect of the proposed project on the environment. with respect to contaminated sediments and storm letter the project during construction would be subject to sediment control storm water prevention plan which is required under the states gen. permit for construction. this main purpose of that is to prevent off-site transport of sediment contaminated sediments, from storm water. once the project is constructed, there would be no pathway to exposure from native soils from the site in the storm water both because the
7:16 pm
mediation will be completed [inaudible] there be no contaminants. and no native soils would be aye. so this would not present an issue with respect to the adequacy of the eir. we heard a bit about also the preference of some of comments for the real transportation and is opposed to trucking. the project would, as other testified and well documented in the eir, provide on-site treatment of contaminated soils such that the soils, and all that would be subject to regulatory oversight sows by the [inaudible] and regional water quality control board. the result of that is that would not be a need for long-distance transportation of soil proposal and with that, there is the
7:17 pm
advantage of transportation of hazardous materials is lost. then, with respect to the few remarks we just heard on some the transportation mitigation measures, i want to read the entirety of the transportation mitigation measures tr-13. they've spent more than what the appellant as representing what it says mitigation to accommodate muni demand from the project site nat part during overlapping evening event. the project sponsor to work with the league ballpark coordinating committee and sfmta to provide enhanced muni light-rail service in or shuttle buses between three markets right locations in the project examples of enhanced service one could muni bus shuttles between union square and/or cal st., bart muni
7:18 pm
station and project site. the need for enhancement muni service shall be based on [inaudible] overlapping events to be projected attendance levels anticipated start and end times. the other measure that was not fully provided to you the language of which is rather lengthy, and that is measured tr-18. this is the measure that was put into place to enforce the performance standard, it is really a backstop to make sure that the transportation and impacts referred to in the eir are accurate and if extensions are backed up within forceful litigation requirements.. the sponsor is required to implement transportation management measures to reach the
7:19 pm
performance standard. the maximum extent feasible. they're not also presently making a try and if the measures proved to be ineffective, they can just give up. they are required in the mitigation monitoring reporting program was a condition approval of the project, to meet the performance standard to the extent that it is feasible to do so. from a ceqa legal standpoint because the sponsor's attorneys focus on that, because there is some remaining uncertainty about the feasibility of meeting a standard in the future the significant determination in the eir for that impact is what's called significant and unavoidable would mitigation. that's an acknowledgment of fact there's some uncertainty could nevertheless the sponsor is not off the hook [inaudible]. >> thank you. are there any other comments from the staff
7:20 pm
with regards to that the tickler questions? scene there is not, supervisor kim >> thank you. ashley i do have one follow-up question that came up through a member of the public comment. only because i'm reading her letter now because was submitted today. this is from susan holly and she addressed that there was a recent california supreme court case that she felt was relevant to the one here in southern california. i was hoping that the city attorney could respond in terms of how this appeal on this eir is distinct from that case?? elaine- >> elaine-spirit actually, there is documentation in the record was prepared by one of
7:21 pm
the attorneys for the warriors that goes into more detail. so, it is in-that has been submitted to. but it to explain briefly, that case identified-what was done in the case was not the way the planning department did the analysis here. the analysis was done here was to look at whether the project would comply with the cities ordinance established a standard for greenhouse gas reductions was a number of years ago. as a result of that ordinance, and thus the goals identified in the cities ordinance are more aggressive than the standard that has been backed by the state of california. in that case, the court said that the problem with the approach that they took was not that they looked at whether it was consistent with the state goals
7:22 pm
, odyssey, if we look at being consistent with our goals which are even more aggressive, that would be an acceptable approach. but, what the court really criticized was that they did not show the actions they were taking would be effective in helping me back plan. the city -the court then identified other ways that they could've gone about the problem in one of the ways they identified was to have a climate action plan or greenhouse gas reduction plan . the city has adopted a detailed program or put together-it's really a series of actions that the city has done including many ordinance that adopted by the board of supervisors as well as other programs the city is put into effect. the planning department has documented all these actions
7:23 pm
into a strategy document that they cemented ashley to the bay area air quality management district. the eb area calling management strip said that this was really stellar efforts and it is as a result of that that compendium of action that the way the environment does its analysis determines when a project is going to be consistent with all these programs that the city has adopted. it did that analysis in this case? >> i think having her the presentation would like to move forward i think that the city has done an adequate and complete job and our mental impact report for the proposed
7:24 pm
golden state warrior center arenas of that is a motion i believe we also have the appeal of the town of knobby force as well. is that correct? no? >> we will call those items once we have moved forward on these items. >> my motion has to prove 58 and two table 59 and 60.? supervisor kim has made a motion to approve 58 and table item 59 and 60. second by supervisor speed. mdm. clerk please call the roll >> supervisor campos aye cohen [inaudible] farrell [inaudible] kim aye mar aye tang aye wiener
7:25 pm
aye b gies avalos aye breed aye there are 10 [inaudible]? colleagues of bottle sub sub and my mental and packed report is highly certified unanimously >>[gavel] >> we're going to take up that there is a minute recess before we moved in the next item. >>[gavel] >>[recess]
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
7:33 pm
7:34 pm
7:35 pm
7:36 pm
7:37 pm
>> >>[recess]
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
7:42 pm
7:43 pm
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
>> all right postwar back from recess. colleagues, we are 1 min. ahead of schedule of our 20 min. break. i know supervisor kim will be here shortly. we are reconvening as the board of supervisors we have us an appeal of the warriors event center in district 6. i'm clerk please call item 61-64 >>public hearing a person of interest in the decision dated november 12, 2015 approval of final tab eight of 93 for 100 unit commercial condominium
7:50 pm
subdivision for the post-golden state warriors event center mixed-use development center admission date south block 29-32. items 62 motion to improve the public decision to approve the tentative final map. item 63 motion to disapprove the public works decision tenor final map and 64's motion directing the findings to disapproval of the tenant final map. >> colleagues, for this hearing will be considering whether the tentative map for the warriors event center is appropriate under the subdivision map pack including whether it is consistent with the general plan for any specific plan that applies. without objection, will proceed as follows. up to 10 min. for appellant to state the grounds for their up you get up to 10 min. for public commenters to speak support. it determines
7:51 pm
for representatives of the department of public works and planning department to describe the grounds for their decision to approve the tentative map. up to 10 min. for the real property and interests to present. up to 2 min. for public hunters to speak in support of the real property interests and finally got the appellants will have up to 3 min. for a rebuttal. it's time to get started. i will start with without objection, i will -is there a motion to excuse supervisor peskin for item 61-64 and 65-68? moved by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor mar without objection supervisors peskin is excuse. >>[gavel] ? the appellants are up. >> you have 10 min. >> good evening president breed and members of the board. i would like to be a computer
7:52 pm
>> start over. we will start over because the bell rang.? thank you. >> i'm susan grant holly and i'm here representing the mission bay alliance in its appeal and i see the photograph is up. rather than just look at the decision about some photographs of mission bay to illustrate some of the points i'm going to be making. the significant problem with this project over last the ceqa issued. art realize those are resolved by this board but there's an overlapping issue of an inconsistency with the redevelopment plan the makes the tentative map problematic and should not be approved for that reason. i would just like to take my time to walk to that issue to make this board understand there's been so much paper, and i understand is
7:53 pm
difficult to read everything and not understanding how could i like to explain it so back to the computer, had a vision or mission bay staff. that vision wasthey doubt any special kind of dimensions like the original blocks of san francisco and we see it around union square and in north beach and other parts of the city. this whole areas without in these clocks. so, it's an urban landscape that says i'm in a certain way. this project is not consistent with that plan. as this board knows, it has the ability and legal authority and discretion, to amend a land use plan to accommodate a project that is
7:54 pm
found worthwhile. that cannot happen here. that is an underlying flaw of very significant fundamental flaw with this project, and it precludes approval of a tentative map when there's an inconsistency with the land-use plan. the eir do not look at this issue. with the eir eir said ashley the initial study before even getting to the eir phase, said that when use was not an issue in this project, that, in fact the project was consistent with the redevelopment plan. but it said was that the plan has uses that are prescribed for all the different blocks. the uses, there are primary uses allowed absolutely and are secondary uses allowed if there's a certain findings made that the project is compatible with the land-use plan and necessary for extra things one has to talk about if you want a secondary
7:55 pm
use. with the initial study said, that this project was consistent with a nighttime entertainment use. i'm showing you photographs of what mission bay looks like now. that's the hospital. there are joggers and you can see the walkable streets. in the area. i'll find a good one. i'll leave that one up for now. so, the redevelopment plan starts out with policies and objectives and the normal things you would see in a plan with her overall ideas for how mission bay south is opposed to be developed and you get into the specifics of the uses. the primary and secondary uses have to both, as i said, meet the general criteria and the p found to be particularly appropriate, but they also to meet the words of the plan. now, nighttime entertainment, which is what
7:56 pm
the ceqa process said this project complied with. basically, it allows dance halls, discos, night clubs and private clubs. historically, in the area of mission bay south there were some small clubs and bars that were of this type. there is no specific size stated for those uses, and so with the initial analysis was by the environmental consultants was that while there's no size limit so there is going to be music at times and there's going to be out called served. it's consistent with his nighttime entertainment use. in comments on the eir, the missionary alliance emma and i believe others, points out that the un usage should not been stoked out of the eir. that this did not fit into a nighttime entertainment use category, and so they should analyze that and if needed, amend the plan. in response to that the response to comments, basically conceded
7:57 pm
the plan. said, well, we talk about the sports arena. there's a number of uses for this project. there's office uses an retail and various things, but the sports arena is the thing that does not fit into any of the zoning categories. so, the eir people send responses to comments basically admitted that nighttime entertainment may not encompass the sports arena, and so they posited that they could say that it was one of two other possible uses. one is a use called a public structure or use of a nonindustrial character. they posited that a public use-these are really two things even though presented as one. without getting too technical here at this hour after hours we just spent we explained it in our submittal, but the redevelopment agency years ago, when the ucsf hospital was approved, they use that category and they called-they do not save as two separate uses either public structure or a
7:58 pm
non-is australia use. instead it's one category, public structure or use of a nonindustrial character. one category. that a public use is something that is-it's not just use that the people in the community can use. it is actually-that would in fact mean basically any kind of use could be called a public use if that was the definition and that was not the definition and use. it was a facility built by the public, a public agency for its own purposes. so, that kudlow category does not fit. the other category is called recreational building. there is a difference in the definition. is not an exact definition in the plan of what a recreational program is, but recreation is different from entertainment. normally, recreation when a personal activity is used as opposed to entertainment, when you're enjoying performances by
7:59 pm
sports team or some other entertainer. if you do look at the types of plan references, the entertainment and recreation , they basically they do not meet any kind of possible definition that would apply to this project. basically, none of the secondary uses apply. the response we heard from oci i ashley mr. morale spoke at the oci hearing was that the reader government agency or suspects her agency has the discretion to interpret its plan and also to take action consistent with the overall goals of its plan and so. respect the, that's not what the plan provides. the overriding policy in the plan, but you also do specifically comply with zoning. this board
8:00 pm
makes that happen all over the city, and why would it not amend this plan to make this arena fit.. there is a concession that arena-if you look at the 1998 eir for the redevelopment plan, you say nothing at all remotely of this type or scale of this arena in that plan, and it's not consistent with any of the history criteria that's trying to be finagled into. in light of that, the tentative map is a problem because you're finding is consistent with the second reason the route development plan c is claim not to be a nighttime entertainment or a recreational building or a public structure or use of the non-industrial character. none of those things that. so, in order to comply with a lot you need to amend the reader government plan to accommodate this project did it should've been studied in the eir. i know you party, appeal wanting, but that was one of the strongest bases remains a very strong criticism of the er. not only was there an assumption that
8:01 pm
the secondary use put into the nighttime entertainment category wasn't even discussed in the eir out. we scoped out and this is one of the problems with this project, is that you've heard about the problems with access to the ucsf medical center and the problems with transportation. there is also the problem with the big change in the character of this planned community that was issued bay south, and while that can be changed, it is a significant change. you lose the blocks. you lose the walker. useful character that was planned for the air. if that were to happen, it needs to be studied and it needs to be something that is amended so that the plan fits as opposed to a pretense that in fact this project was contemplated or some help within the scope of the 1998 redevelopment plan that still everyone agrees, is the controlling document here.
8:02 pm
thank you. >> actually 51 second to say to supervisor speaking, i reference to that new whole >> can i finish >> supervisor kim >> your doctors found >> thank you, supervised i did mention the case in the short letter. what i said was, what i referenced the supreme court made a landmark decision just last week. if the center for biological-discussed but my comment was not about greenhouse gases which is what- assuming that was what i talk about it was an overarching thing that that is a very-the project has been pending for many many years. a huge project in southern california. there was the subject of the supreme court decision. a dissenting justice said were going to
8:03 pm
require additional ceqa review. that's a hold of a great project and look at what we are doing what the majority of the court said, clearly, is that when you're looking at ceqa you don't look at dewey really want to project? do we like the project we wanted to happen quickly? first, you have to enforce ceqa and the court took a strong position on that that you look at ceqa enforcement >> if i understand your argument is saying the cities rushing because the project they want to see and that this is the similarity you're trying from that case? but with the actual reason the justices decided to set aside this project? they said the city was motivated because they like the project so much but what were the actual reasons they listened that you think are similar to this appeal? >> just to be clear the city court didn't say the city was motivated necessarily. the
8:04 pm
court said is one very senior supreme court justice that was a court same look at what were deemed were holding up after reading the record the court said is like a great project at this particular justice ensure many people do. he said i'm a good leader courts are looking at ceqa we don't look at it's a great project. >> i don't think what the board is looking at either. you still have to have an actual something to hang on to say that the environmental impact review is not adequate. what was the reasoning the court found you felt that they could also find in this case speak we >> in that case they found a problem? that you can think you can find this case before today not all the reasons they overturn new hauler set aside newhall but which one of the reasons you feel are relevant to the golden state arena speak we >> i appreciate you allow me to explain supervisor speaking. my claim was that the omission
8:05 pm
they alliance, it appears to be an alliance that this has been rushed through. why would they amend the redevelopment >> nobody is saying were rushing to this project. so by good boy is coming to san francisco, we still have to ashley list legitimate legal issue that would enumerate by the justices when they set aside newhall ranch case and how that is similar to the one that is before us today if you want us to overturn the certification with the tentative map appeal. >> respectfully, i think there's an issue that overlaps. that is the one overlapping issue that the court's statement applies across the board to every ceqa case. that was my point in terms of the specific issue there's a greenhouse gas issue party her discussion of the technicolor said that that the business as usual i'm not an expert. that's not my area but that that's the specific issue we now believe
8:06 pm
is going to be controlling in this case there is a difference of opinion among counsel but yes, that greenhouse gas issue is common to both >> what ms. warne addressed >> yes. yes. b2 i believe bring up alone that the courts have said the city rushed through this process because they're so excited but they actually were able to lean on legitimately lal issues with the ceqa approval. i think you have to be able to lean on the same justification. >> the court did not say the city recipient i'm sorry from not being understood well supervised. >> i understand what you're expressing is that the justices appointed out that reason alone is not why we should approve and eir and i agree with that, but then there should actually be some legitimate legal issues you point to in the newhall ranch case that are similar to the case before us so that we would consider overturning
8:07 pm
certification. >> for my last event i would like to say that we have presented a lots of incremental issues and of our mental problems. one of which is the failure to address land use inconsistency >> one of the reasons the justices set aside newhall ranch >> no it's not about your rent >> what would you actually -what amendment would you make to the plan or what zoning which you convey on this project that you feel would be more appropriate than the one that the city is utilizing now around nighttime entertainment? >> the redevelopment plan has another different zoning classification. none of them fit. what have to be done as a new category a new exception made for this project nuts within the city's discretion if other ceqa-? in the larger planning code that they could reference it? >> since they proved att but i'm just big enough atop my
8:08 pm
head is probably something i can sure. were not doing the disparity and a map appeal or any other place in this record that we don't think there's a way to have zoning to accommodate this arena. the city has discretion to apply zoning and special zoning for special circumstances. so, it's been studied and mitigated at such. that has not happened here. i'm insane rushing am not accusing anyone. it's hard to understand why there wasn't an amendment made because this is not fit any reasonable interpretation and in fact i believe the city has conceded that when i try to fit it into other categories that, in fact, simply don't fit. so, take a little more time is what we are asking. take some time amend the plan of the other issues we brought up that are not appropriate to bring up under the tentative map, but this one is appropriate. to take the time to avoid this kind of argument, and to everyone else
8:09 pm
in the city has to comply with zoning and certainly something you said at the beginning supervisor kim that this is going to change this whole area. positive and negative ways. there's a concession there are significant environmental impacts to this project. everyone agrees about that. so it should be done in the >> speaking >> thank you. >> seen you have no other questions supervisor speaking, i will open this up to public comments for those who want to speak in support of the appeal. you have 2 min. each. see no members of the public for public comment >>[gavel] >> anyone else? please line up to my left >> are we talking item 64? in opposition to the preparation for the tenor final map correct? 2 min. >> yes >> as my name is rodney from
8:10 pm
mission hill it makes a lot of sense. she was stating the other cases. it seems like she's saying were not really trying to accuse you could. in a way, it looks like you're rushing things are being rushed through because you're not going to the letter of the law in really technically doing what you're supposed to be doing. as far as the review process. so commission makes a very eloquent point here. i have seen this with the opposition is trying to really root out this really cleanly that you're going to try to build a major project like this and it seems like you want to
8:11 pm
put this project and there's a lot of opposition. so you're trying to [inaudible] getting clear and it seems like it's not being adjudicated very clearly and cleanly. it seems like a rush to make it actually seems like a rush. my thing is, why wasn't errant pesky in here about people i think he could've gave very clear light to assist you supervisors in this process. there's a lot of work to be done on behalf of the warriors, but the opposition is not even, i don't think they want to deal with the warriors. i think there's a lot of opposition out there and i think were getting a fair shake it? >> any of the members of the public would like to make public comment at this time see no public undisclosed
8:12 pm
>>[gavel] ? will now have to >> woman about to 10 min. of two presentation for department of public works for their decision to approve the tentative map. >> good evening matter president and board members. my name is paul-have a public works. with the agency proving the tentative map. ultimately procedural history and in turn this over to my colleagues at oci for any further comment. on march 9 that apartment received the tentative map application. as you all may know the map application is largely administer real decision. governed under the subdivision map back in a local ordinance and regulations. the application was processed and in conjunction with other infected city agencies on october 28 we held a public hearing. there was no comment received either for or against
8:13 pm
the project. on november 6 we received oci i letter of consistency. which the appellant has basically basing their appeal on. on november 12 we issued our tentative map approval. it was a conditional approval. we have about 37 pages of detailed engineering type requirements that are associated with this project. as part of that incorporated the monitoring mitigation and reporting requirements. the other requirements of environmental impact report. on december 2, oci i provided to our department a copy of a letter responding to this particular point the applicant has raised. the boy has a copy of these already, so i won't elaborate further, but if there's any further issues that -would like to state a minute
8:14 pm
trying remainder of our time over to them. >> good evening board members. tiffany boley executive director of the office of community investment and infrastructure oci i. the golden state warriors project is consistent with the mission bay south wiedemann plan. that determination was made based on a full review of the proposed land uses and the physical improvements for the golden state warriors project. we considered at a public hearing on november 3 staff recommendations, public testimony, for find the redevelopment standards for when use consistency. that secondary a man land-use determinist included the golden state warriors project good secondary uses that generally conform with the redevelopment of objectives and planning and design controls. it makes a positive contribution to the project area and provides necessary desirable and compatible to vomit the neighborhood and community. as
8:15 pm
the pound in her materials, she pointed out a picture of the mission bay hospital. the approach i just described, the formal redevelopment agency, apply those raising secondary use standards in order to find a conformity with the redevelopment plan for mission bay hospital. so, without i like to turn it over to jim aroused to provide additional information in support of the land use consistency determination. >> mr. murawski my wiedemann, could you address the issue ms. -pardon about the land-use zoning. >> general counsel oci i. first, i want to point out that the alleged inconsistency with the redevelopment plan was raised several times and
8:16 pm
actually was essential part of the challenge to the eir that you just resolve. in favor of the eir. other members of the legal team raised this issue in written comments, and letters to the oci i commission before it made its decision. every time that these issues were raised, oci i staff director, address them. at least that this question has already been raised and asked and answered and this is getting in another attempt to try to challenge on grounds that it already been resolved. opiate in the context of the subdivision map appeal. i just want to walk you briefly through the redevelopment plan and the process we follow.
8:17 pm
director bo he is tomorrow. as you know the redevelopment plan is a 30 year plan for development in blighted areas. adopted by the board of supervisors in 1990. obviously, as a 30 year plan to encourage and authorize development in an area, it was broad in scope and gave significant discretion and authority to first, the redevelopment agency, and then when it was dissolved, to the office of community investment and infrastructure. when the state dissolved the redevelopment agency, it did not dissolve the authority under this development plan. in fact, the state found that completion of the mission bay south project area was an
8:18 pm
enforceable obligation that survived the dissolution of redevelopment and that conferred upon oci i, as a successor agency, the complete authority of the redevelopment agency to complete that project. the redevelopment plan itself, as you know, land-use and zoning consist not only of use but also of the limitations on physical improvements in the area. the event center meets the standards of the redevelopment plan, the basic land-use standards for the redevelopment plan in terms of the height of the ratio and other basic elements of the zoning scheme that are outlined in the redevelopment plan. in addition, the plan allows for the agency to through its executive director to determine whether particular uses a secondary uses should be
8:19 pm
allowed. the event center itself has certain uses, proposes certain uses that are actually principal uses. most notably, arts activity in spaces which are principal use in the redevelopment plan good there are certain events and activities at the event center that fall into the principal use category and don't need a second or use determination. the appellant, however, is challenging the decision of the oci i executive director. that was heard before the public hearing on november 3, that the event center consisted of four secondary uses. nighttime entertainment, recreation building him a public use, and a use of a nonindustrial character. each of these identified as allowable uses and are permitted if the
8:20 pm
director makes a finding that the secondary use is consistent with the redevelopment objectives in the redevelopment plan and is consistent with basic land-use of the redevelopment plan, and also, that secondary use has a-makes a positive contribution to the project area and that the size and intensity contemplated is both desirable and necessary and compatible with the neighborhood. the director had an extensive set of findings that were proposed. it was a public hearing on the matter, and in a extensive documentation that is part of the record in secondary use determination, the director found at the public hearing that the secondary use was allowable. nighttime
8:21 pm
entertainment was identified early on, back, i believe, in october-november last year. the initial study as one of the allowable land uses for the event center. oci i has never deviated from its consideration that indeed was an appropriate allowable use. nighttime entertainment includes particular uses, discotheques, dance halls, private clubs. there is no size imitation on those uses. and the definition of nighttime entertainment says that other evening rain dated nighttime rain dated activities are allowed. it was that basic definition that was interpreted by oci i to embrace and include
8:22 pm
the event center. in addition, we looked at the definition of -these all fall under the broad category of assembly and entertainment, which there's no question that the event center falls within the category of assembly and entertainment use. another such use was recreational building and it is true that the redevelopment plan does not provide a definition of recreation building, but look at comments and definitions of what recommendation recreation building could include. it could include not only athletic events in which people participate but also observed. using that definition the oci i found another basis for secondary use. in addition, the public nature of the building, the fact that will be used for a variety of events that of the important and significant to the community, not just
8:23 pm
athletic events but also potential convention type activities, other types of meetings, arts and activities, those are also included within a public use designation. finally, use of a nonindustrial character and clearly this is not an industrial use. ms. grant hall was referred to the street grade of the mission bay south that is in the plan. mission bay south street and the-proposed that area are guidelines with specific climates are not required >> thank you mr. murawski at supervisor kim >> mr. murawski my mr. murawski my summary notes from planning the zoning wheezed for the giants stadium at mission bay north? i hear both
8:24 pm
arguments. i could see how for some folks in their reading of nighttime entertainment use this arena might seem like a significant departure, but doesn't like the definition is broad enough, as you mentioned. there's no attendance or participant limitation in nighttime use that you could conceivably put an arena in this category, but i'm curious if we did apply specific use? to the giant stadium? >> supervisor kim, at the time the site of at&t ballpark was not in a redevelopment plan area. it wasn't-it was outside the boundary. so, at least the
8:25 pm
redevelopment agency at the time in the proposal was to put it into a redevelopment area. it cannot be done without an amendment >> but it did get the zoning, right? >> when the plan-when the ballpark >> weather was planted on or read about what was the zoning assigned to the giant stadium? >> was a particulars zoning that was amended to include the boundaries of that particular site. so, because the boundaries were amended it was a particular zoning use for the ballpark. that was established. so it was unique and specific designation for that part out use. here, we do not have to do that because the site is already in the redevelopment plan and there are provisions in the redevelopment plan to allow for secondary use. such as this that would allow the
8:26 pm
commission and the director to make a finding to about >> so as a redevelopment area plan it is distinct from our normal city process because you can utilize secondary use for changes-with some i concerned a change from the planted the me ask you this question. the balance of the sports arena were not compliant it in the original mission bay south plan. what was? whatsit of a change i can think of, of course, the imagine was not contemplated in the plan was the hospital. because that something that was developed that occurred later. what hospital consulate in the original mission bay south plan? >> supervisor kim that's absolutely correct. was to that neither the hospital nor the event center were contemplated in the eir. they were, however, allowed under the redevelopment plan as secondary uses, which i noted broad categories that some definitions that apply. for both the hospital and the event center. but, we admit the
8:27 pm
eir do not look at the particular impacts of either the hospital or the event center . that's why we have the eir before you today and why was certified by the oci i to look at the specific impact. but that doesn't mean the plan to not allow for the event center. adjustment the particular impacts associate with the event center cannot been studied in 1998. that absence was cured by the environment of impact report that was done for the event center for the event ctr., joe certified and now spirit >> just to summarize the members of the public there's a precedent for this that within a redo government area plan but one significant one that most people would understand is the hospital itself. >> yes. the hospital clearly was not contemplated. was the subject of its own separate
8:28 pm
remnants on knossos that the uc regents did to ensure the impacts of a hospital which are not, traded at a particular site studied and evaluated. the hospital itself, is a public use was not authorized either was not my second use and at that time. obama agency director made a determination that was an appropriate title use for the area. >> thank you. >> mr. murawski my up with the hospital pay any taxes or a transit impact fees? >> president breed that's a good question. as you recall, one of the concerns at the time the hospital was proposed that it would take property off the tax rolls because it's a public use, and the mission bay redevelopment plan really only
8:29 pm
works through the generation of property tax to pay for public infrastructure, and affordable housing under the plan. so, the fact that the hospital would not be generating property tax revenue because it was exempt led to negotiations between the redevelopment agency and the uc regents to provide in lieu of payments that were equal to or exceeded the amounts property tax that would be-would've otherwise been available for both the infrastructure and for the affordable housing. in fact, the payments for the for the housing were quite significant and recently we have begun construction on the affordable housing. that was associated with the uc regents agreement to provide funding that was equivalent to the
8:30 pm
property tax revenues that would've gone to before the house. so, technically, hospital does not have to pay the property tax upon which third redevelopment plan so heavily relies but came up with an alternative in lieu of payments that satisfy the redevelopment agency commission at the time >> in addition to the property they part purchased with the in lieu of fee we put on the board? later on? mean way after-this is after the success of agency? >> yes >> the one the more recently passed on the board level last year, i think it was? it was an in lieu fee of transportation attack? it was not a required tax attached to the property but they were necessarily- >> yes. we have determined that the event center is required to pay that fee.
8:31 pm
>> i think it's a little bit of a different question but i think i get it. i'm good. supervisor campos >> i actually was can ask the question about whether or not the use was contemplated as a secondary compass, but actually mr. morales, could you cover that pretty well. i'm fine. thank you. >> with that, we are moving right along for the next presentation from the real party in interest to present for two tenants. >>? general counsel has the
8:32 pm
appeal is about merit under the loss will not rehash those technical and legal arguments. however, we do want to note the commission data lines is not raised any new issues in this map appeal that were not already addressed in the ceqa appeal that darted been considered. essentially, they have not raised any issues related to the adequacy of the tentative map itself. i would just reiterate the warriors have worked hard with her future neighbors to ensure that all legitimate concerns are addressed and including those of ucsf residents and businesses inside the mission bay area. the support we received from the community from such residence businesses and ucsf is the result of the process of listening, learning, working together with her future neighbors. we request you deny the appeal of the
8:33 pm
tentative map.? >> thank you. with that, we will open up to public comment for any members of the public who like to comment in support of the real party in interest. please come forward at this time seeing none, bubble, disclosed >>[gavel] >> finally the appellant would love to 3 min. for rebuttal. >> susan graham holly again. well, ucsf presents a good example as well as at&t park about the problems with this project that were not present there. ucsf is a public facility. what we relied upon in our argument is that you have to look at the plain meaning of the words of the secondary use category. there been strained beyond gradually. credulity. we believe that makes the tenor map unlawful. the redevelopment respondents
8:34 pm
and reports the ucs of hospital was a lot of secondary use under a single category. a public structure or use when nonindustrial character. that is one category, not to be according to the reader government agencies own prior interpretation. that's what makes sense here. if ever what they're parsing here there's two categories of public structure or use of a non-industrial carriage. if, in fact any use of a nonindustrial character is allowed in this commercial industrial zone, it leaves your plan meaningless. you don't need any other kind of delineation of different uses. in terms of the nighttime entertainment, what the words are, dance all, discotheque private club or similar evening
8:35 pm
entertainment use it. this is not under any reasonable interpretation of these words a similar use to that. if you look at the 1998 redevelopment plan, if you look at the ucsf document for any kind of consistency or logic, this does not fit. we learned just now that before at&t park it was not-the land was not fully encompassed in the existing redevelopment plan, so the plan areas expanded somewhat to encompass it and then there was a new designation put on the zoning so that it would fit. that wasn't necessary to happen. what i'm hearing is that it was probably a zoning already there that got changed. even a part of it was not part of the redevelopment., here, looking at the history of this in the redevelopment plan was approved with the eir said and the plain words, the definition say, this simply does not fit
8:36 pm
and in order to go forward, we need to amend the redevelopment plan just as you do all the time. we heard that these questions have been asked and answered. that's true. the alliance, from the very beginning-what are coming in at the last minute saying something should've and then-from the very beginning of this process it's been months or something like that, you insane this does not fit into any of these uses and this needs to be fixed. >> thank you. with that, this hearing has been held and is now closed. >>[gavel] >> this item is in the board of supervisors and i like to recognize supervisor kim >> i just want to agree with the project sponsor that i don't believe the appellants have brought up any new arguments that we have not already listen to in the eir determination appeal. i just want to say that i think
8:37 pm
significantly weakens the appellant's argument because they rest on this land use arguments. the very use of the institution that the appellant states they are protecting, the ucsf hospital, was also not contemplated in the original mission by south plan and i think that is also from a layperson's perspective is significant departure in terms of use as much so as this warriors arena. so, we make a motion to move forward with item 62 and to table 63 and 64. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to move forward with item 62 and table 63 and 64. is there a second? moved and seconded. and mcclure, please call the roll >> campos aye cohen aye
8:38 pm
farrell aye kim aye mar aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye? the tentative map is finally affirmed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, let's get to the items-let's call items 65 through 68? item 65 resolution to adopt findings under ceqa in the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program
8:39 pm
in the statement of overriding consideration in connection with the redevelopment of the golden state warriors event center mixed-use development. the mission that 29-32 and mission bay south redevelopment plan. item 66 in ordinance to it establish a fund to pay for city services and capital improvements such as transportation and other needs of the community in connection with events at the golden state warriors event center. also to create an advisory committee to make recommendations about the use of monies from the fund and to adopt the appropriate findings under ceqa. in 67 the ordinance to delegate to director of public works authority to accept acquired public improvements related to the development of the event center and authorize the director of the real estate division to accept any future easements licensing grantees were led to the develop project and putting a public sidewalk easement and grant deeds and to adopt the appropriate findings under ceqa. item 68, mdm. pres. is a ordinance under the for
8:40 pm
one of terry stormont or purposes and to offers of dedication within portions of the assessor block number 8722 and lot numbers one and eight within the mouse issue date south for the golden state warriors event center to authorize determination and other city rights and interest in the vacated area and to authorize the director of the puc and director property to execute a quitclaim deed for the vacated easements in vacation areas can provide a license agreements, retroactive extension of the previous execute agreements and the public use of the temporary terry a françois boulevard connector road and to adopt equip findings and make other probably find >> but start with item number 60 record supervisor kim >> i was talking with the city attempted we can vote on this item separately >> we call the item so we can basically vote on it now based
8:41 pm
on a recommendation that you may make. >> i asked my colleagues identify make a motion on this item that's was appropriate motion to table we make a motion to table items 65. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to table items 65. is there a second moved and seconded. madam clerk, can you please call the roll on 65 >> on them motion to table 6 about campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim the i mar aye supervisor tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye >> this item was tabled. >>[gavel] >> supervisor kim to give any comments on the other items as well? >> yes, i do. thank you pres.
8:42 pm
breed. first of all, completely separate the force today i do want to congratulate our undivided golden state warriors mbh image of team whose currently 23-oh. i don't know the last time i've seen this much excitement over 18. this early in the season before christmas and i think what's even more extraordinary is how his team is even stronger than the mbh image up we saw in the previous season. of course, completely separate from what is before us today. what is before us today, of course, was commonly being discussed as the lockbox legislation was establishing the mission bay transportation improvement fund. first of all, i want to say i'm excited that we are going to have an arena and entertainment venue in a few years that mavis will be will to walk bike or take muni to get i want to knowledge the
8:43 pm
project sponsor along with the city has done to ensure the future arena will really be very different from arenas we see across the country. one that people will hopefully not be traveling as much by car but by taking alternative modes which i think is incredibly important and relevant as we talk about these items that are before us today. i also want of knowledge a couple of other points about this project. this would be the only nba arena in the league was entirely on private land. for which the construction is entirely financed by private investment. they're also paying the full value of the impact fee. both childcare. and taxes including the $2.25 ticket stadium admissions tax with no waivers for special treatment. the last five nba arenas to open in charlotte, orlando, oklahoma city, brooklyn and soon in sacramento, spent an average of
8:44 pm
$235 million in public funds just for the hard costs of the arena construction. they been quite a bit of literature in academia criticizing public subsidies to private arenas and whether this is truly benefit funding public saturdays and proud san francisco be the first city to host 100% privately financed arena. the arena was also easily certified by the city of california's environmental leadership development project is both greenhouse gas net neutral and would create 3.2 acres of public open space and was now parking lot would trigger the construction of the much awaited 5.5 acre base line park admission may represent a district with the smallest and fewest parks in the city. i think this is a significant contribution. no, where san francisco is contemplating banning public dollars-i want to knowledge that that we are doing that to items before us today-is to mitigate the impact of this arena. the proposed
8:45 pm
mission bay transportation improvement fund. this fund set aside a portion of the net revenue generated by the site to support transportation mitigation such as additional parking control officers, which i think incredibly important to do traffic management did something our residents are already asking to see more of in our neighborhoods without the arena. additional light rail vehicles, and of course additional muni services. the city would not touch any of the set-aside funds such as the children's fund, library fund, and 10% of all remaining revenues and up to an estimated $1.5 million each year will go to our general fund. what i will also note about the special fund, because of the critical special ones in the past, and gives me a little more security, unlike some other special funds this fund
8:46 pm
will actually be subject to board of supervisors approval and appropriation each year. i think that is an important distinction am a that there will still be oversight and authorization by this very board every year. i think, likely, we would actually allocate those dollars for general fund anyway as we do currently for giants stadium. if you understand the concerns about specials on some set-aside. they do limit the board and may reflect flex ability to invest back public dollars based on needs and priorities of the city every year. however, i would likely support utilizing a portion of net new revenue to offset the mitigation of this project and this number of the public that earlier quoted me from a lenny study comments made about the super bowl l party. that comment and i want to distinguish the comment from what is before us today. because when we discussed the super bowl l party on monday we never discussed san francisco setting aside a portion of the net new revenue that the super bowl party would actually generate them using that for additional
8:47 pm
services for the party. we were simply talking about setting aside general funds and not even having a sense of what the actual cost of the mitigation was. i think that this is distinct from that because we are actually looking at this project is generated. if not to state sf pd public works and sfmta mena incurred additional cost above and beyond what's been set aside these funds. i think given the fact we are to have a stadium the at&t ballpark , i am hopeful and optimistic that the city has done a much stronger job this time around in assessing the future predictions about the true cost will be of making sure that we can make the city run and have an arena and stadium in our city. i just want to note, again, the two major neighbors and institutions at ucsf mission bay cfc have unanimously endorses project up
8:48 pm
colleagues, ask for your support on items 66, 67, and 60. >> thank you supervisor speaking. supervisor avalos >> thank you. so, i intend to support items 56 through 68. i'm sorry. 67 through 68 with my intend to vote against a not that i don't see that there's not real merit to what 66 is trying to do with its fun. i realize that even hearing our environmental impact reports and the appeal and the reason why-it covers many of the mitigation measures that were discussed that are actually being done by mitigating traffic that are in the fund getting new vehicles for light
8:49 pm
rail.. that's adjacent to the façade. getting parking control officers to manage traffic in the intersections a little bit further away from the stadium. paying for police officers and dpw services as well. all these things are important i will acknowledge and will acknowledge the warriors work very well with the public even with the essential services that need to be accompanying the stadium. but my concern is not with the new vehicles and new services. my concern is really how over and over again i see how projects are supported with the general fund subsidy. this is a general funds of the because it's taking revenue that's coming from this project and instead of that revenue going to the general fund it's coming back into the special fund to pay for those services good it's much like the america's cup event we had the america's cup
8:50 pm
we were told was going to be surmount of funding that would help to cover the cost of the city but then it turns out that revenue wasn't generated and then the city used the revenue that was generated from all the indirect revenues from the event to say that well, we were able to cover these costs with this rising revenue. in fact, it was a cost to the city that we bore. my other concern about this fund was, as we are seeing money potentially for the general fund will back to a particular project, it exacerbates the issue that i face in the southern part of san francisco mold we have not seen a lot of major development happening where we have not seen the dollars where development is happening. parks or new buildings were public buildings or transit as it was good we are not seen those types of projects with all the adjacent funds that come with them in district 11. to me, what we've seen this great
8:51 pm
economic boom in san francisco, we're seeing my district get passed over. public other parts that are of san francisco that are passed over. we get the basics. i see often resold these projects because of the huge economic boom in the huge impact to our general fund in a positive way, that would have a benefit for all san franciscans, and i'm not going to indicate a believe this project doesn't have benefits for all san francisco, when it comes to these revenues that should be available for the entire city i don't see that happening that way. i know it's a big ticket item to ask the warriors to actually pay up to $8 million a year in these funds but to me, that would be probably more appropriate is that the impact created of having the arena are paid for by the warriors themselves. i believe it deal the giants have where there's a lot of the general fund dollars that could bid for traffic enforcement and police enforcement around the stadium is not the best deal i
8:52 pm
do. i think that johnson should be paying more to offset the general costs are based on the events that happened around the ballpark. so, to me, i understand the interest from community and want to have such a fun but from my perspective where i see that that the moment is passing a sober and even the benefits are created in the moment often pass a silver in district 11. i can't put myself behind this fund. thank you. >> thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener >> thank you matter present. first, since we don't have the approval before us it was the eir pill and subdivision i guess is probably the best opportunity as supervisor speaking to talk about what an exciting project this is for san francisco and after all these years that were finally
8:53 pm
at a point where this project is going to move forward for san francisco. it's incredible were able to welcome the warriors back home, but i think it is also poor and to keep in mind what this is going to mean for the cultural vibrancy of our city. that we will finally have a true arena for entertainment, for concerts, for all the things that help make a city a world-class nightlife is so important in san francisco. this is always been a missing piece. it will no longer have this missing piece. so, this is exciting and very happy to support this. i also want to talk illiterate about transportation. i decide to raise it now incident during the eir appeal hearing. that is clearly been think the biggest challenge around this project, dealing with congestion. i respect the
8:54 pm
concerns at ucsf had raised previously and that others have raised him up but i also think it's important to look at the bigger picture here. that the congestion we are seen in san francisco and that we are seeing in this general area, it's not because of or won't be because of one arena. it's problematic now. it is so much bigger than any one project. it's because we have a city that's been growing and growing and has been for decades and is continuing to grow. there are more people here. there are more jobs here. there's more economic activity here. his many more cars. we have to really grapple with that as a city. and decide as a city much and also as a region, what we are going to be in or we can be the kind of place that tolerates the level of
8:55 pm
congestion or make the massive, massive massive transit investments we have to make to get a handle on that. so, this fund is terrific. i fully support it. i think it's going to help him out to be cosponsoring it. let us also keep in mind that ultimately, it's the responsibility of the government of the city to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to invest in our transit system. to make sure that were getting the train all the way to the translate transit center and the were connecting it all away through the second translate to to the east they could sue a wonderful train service coming up the peninsula through mission bay and coming from the east bay to san francisco through mission bay and going south. only with that kind connectivity are we going to really address the investment issued. if the warriors arena disappeared
8:56 pm
tomorrow at the warriors decided tomorrow the work to come to this location, we would stop massive congestion, traffic problems in this area would only get worse over time. so, i completely understand the frustrations of people in this area of some folks associate with ucsf. people in my district, all over, who are constantly talking understandably about how typical it is just to get around town in san francisco. that is because we have not done what we needed to do in terms of preparing for growth and transit investment, but it's not too late. we can do it. we a lot of things coming on the horizon. patient to go to the ballot in the next two years and we have to make sure that would make those correct choice. but i'm very happy to be supporting this today. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee >> thank you supervisor breed. first of all on going to say
8:57 pm
i'm happy that this bus were the warriors will be coming back to san francisco. it seems like it's been so long i can't remember was it [inaudible] i think maybe both. at some point, you actually have to share the coliseum with the oakland. barbara going to those. so, what i want to say is that this is a special set aside and there are some issues that i think supervisor avalos brings up and i'm glad he brought it up . my district is faced with the same situation. were out in the west side of the city and a lot of the developments are built on this side of the city, and so some of the benefits that we receive for the city seemed to be concentrated here. hopefully,
8:58 pm
there's some other benefits that we get out of it on the west side. so, i want to ask staff and maybe you have a answer me or maybe you don't. when i looked at the revenues that can be coming in, it looked like was stated was the direct revenues as a result of whatever happens right at the arena. i'm thinking that if there's a secondary or residual impact on other businesses and so forth when there are activities in this entertainment center. such as restaurants and people staying overnight. so, i am wondering if anybody did an analysis of data revenues would that generate? that might settle my anxiety about not having any resources to [inaudible]? suit
8:59 pm
adam badwater of civil or forced to bauman. we graduate to economic advisers. to look at projected revenues from the event center. the easiest estimated on-site direct revenues. somebody goes and buys a ticket they pay to park. they buy a beverage. this more difficult as off-site and is an extensive debate the economic debate what to and what to not include that it is a mccullough substitution effect some is to go to a theater on curie street or basketball arena and it's not ready. so we took conservative estimates what we didn't include off-site. we do include parking tax revenue. we do include some sales tax revenue. we do include some transit kitty hotel tax revenue. but we try to will look at the lower
9:00 pm
end of those ranges so we did not include somebody who's already in town in a hotel and happens to catch again but rather those who come exclusively for that game. so, the 14.1 million estimated in the revenues is all on-site and off-site and conservatively estimated. >> well, thanks for the answer i was hoping the that wasn't the end. they do left out some the off-site calculations >> were not estimating the indirect impacts of the employees will be on-site and they go out to lunch or their spending in the city. so, that is not included. so there's extra revenue that would be coming into the city. it is not contained in the 14.1. >>.a. that's a little bit other. thank you. >> see no other names on the
9:01 pm
roster, madam clerk, item number 66, please call the roll >> my apologies. >> supervisor kim? after injury suitable technical merits which we can't out to members of the board. think city attorney i'm not sure. to summarize the technical armaments?? i would be happy to. deputy attorney john given her. the motion that the board approved 15 min. or so ago, upholding the tentative map included sql findings. dmm and that supervisor kim distributed in each of the three items 66, 67, 68 incorporate those findings sql findings that were in the tentative map portion. the moments-the documents that supervisor kim
9:02 pm
hazard. also makes two additional moments in addition to sql findings. one, 66, there's a member of the advisory committee that will be appointed by the supervisor for district 6 and supervisor kim proposed amendment would require that that appointee listener neighborhood those in a half-mile of the event center. in item 68, the street vacation item, the proposed amendment would reflect that the puc took action last month concluding that the easements [inaudible]. >> supervisor kim, would you like to move the amendments >> yes >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend moved and seconded. for item 66, 67, and 60. colleagues can we take those amendments without objection? without objection those moments passed unanimously.
9:03 pm
>>[gavel] >> on him number 66 is amended, , supervisor kim other common? >> no. >> on a item number 66" please call the roll >> soup's campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye supervisor tank aye wiener [inaudible] yee aye avalos no breed aye there are nine aye and one of no >> the ordinance past and as a mentor on the first reading >>[gavel] >> call roland sedum six or seven as amended >> kim where the minutes made
9:04 pm
to 67 >> the minutes were made to all three arms. from my understanding >> yes. all three arms. >> campos aye speak: cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye >> the ordinance passes unanimously as amended the double >> collies, for item 68. take this same house, same call. without objection item 68 passes unanimously as amended on the first reading >>[gavel] speed >> banker can we go back-thank you and congratulations. can we
9:05 pm
go to item 34 through fifth team i'm clerk whose call 34-50? 34-50 r 17 resolutions for the department of public health. that approved amendment to the behavioral health service contract and expand each other like two years through december 31, 2017 except right ever. item 34 the contract without the family services increasing up 7.7 million for not to exceed 90 million. item 35 a contract to increase the conduct amount by $69 not to exceed the amount of approximately $85 million. item 36 a contract essential city hospitality house increasing the contract amount by 3.6 million not to exceed 90 million. for item 37, a project with committee awareness and treatment services or slight increase of 6.4 million for total amount not to exceed 42
9:06 pm
million. for item 38, a contract approved amendment number two to the contract with conrad house with a corresponding increase of 16.8 million not to exceed amount of approximately 54,000,000. for item 30, it approves amendment number two to the contract with edgewood center for children and families to the corresponding increase of 19.2 million for total conduct not to exceed 56 million. for item 40, a contract of family services agency with a corresponding increase of 14.9 million for total amount not to exceed 60.59. for item 41, a resolution to approve amendment number two with a concept of health weight 360 with a corresponding increase of 22 million for total amount not to exceed 91.5 million. for item 42, a contract with high street committee services the corresponding increase of 4.9 million the total not to exceed
9:07 pm
amount of 23 nine. for item 43 i'm a a contract with institute familiar-progress on increase of 11.99 for total not to exceed an amount of approximately 26 nine. for item 44, a contract the progress foundation. corresponding increase of 20.9 million for total not to exceed an amount of 121 nine. britain's 45 and 46, to conduct with the regents of the university of california san francisco, 45 is for citywide case management with 9.29 corresponding increase and not to exceed amount of 34 nine. item 46 single point of responsibility program with a 22.59 increase the total amount not to exceed 54.5 million. item 47 and 48, resolution to approve amendment number three to the project with the richmond area multi services
9:08 pm
contract. item 47 increase by 9.7 million for total amount not to exceed 29.6 million. item 48 as a corresponding increase of 10.9 million for total not to exceed 34 million. item 49 results and to prove amendment number two to the contract with seneca center with a corresponding increase of 6.1 million for total amount not to exceed approximately 70,000,000 and item 50 is a religion to approve amendment number one to the public behavioral services with a west side community mental health center to extend the contract by two years the total amount not to exceed approximately 56,000,000. >> rollcall vote. >> on items 34-50. thank you. campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye peskin aye
9:09 pm
tang [inaudible] wiener aye yee aye avalos aye the rate aye dara levin aye >> those resolutions are adopting soa >>[gavel] >> next item, please. item 51. >> item 51 is a revolution to approve the coronation agreement between the city of bike sharing operator bay area motivate a child and transportation commission and participating cities of berkeley, emeryville oakland and san jose for the expansion and operation the bay area bike share system for term of 10 years. >> avalos >> delectable myself down as cosponsor of this contract. >> thank you avalos. wiener
9:10 pm
>> i was a briefly this very exciting step forward for having really extensive and citywide bike share in san francisco but this is him but we've wanted for so long. the pilot program was great but too small and really let people clamoring for better access in all neighborhoods. this allows to move bike share into all neighborhoods and so, i want to thank everyone who made this possible. >> thank you wiene farrell >> i like the cosponsor also >> campos would like to be added as a cosponsor as well and speed. collies can we take this-mar >> i want to thank motivate all the cosponsors and the mayor's office for the tenfold expansion i want to thank motivate and the and air quality management district for
9:11 pm
prioritizing pretty concerned those income communities in the city to have access to bike sharing i know in phase 2 that's coming to one of the communities of concern to the richmond district, but i know as of the southeast part of the city really need it and looking forward to the phase 1 implementation but especially the phase 2 as we look equitably of concern. >> thank you collies, can we take item 51 same house, same call without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> anarcho please call item 52 >> item 52 resolution to authorize san francisco fire department to accept expand staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grant in the approximate amount of 8 million from the federal emergency management agency to either 36 new firefighters for the. jerry 23rd 2620 team.? same house,
9:12 pm
same call? that objection the resolution was adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>" with an escape over item 53 for now and go to item 54. >> items at your resolution to rector are fully authorize this emphasis put on a public health to accept and expend a $517,000 grant from gilead sciences incorporated for program entitling during hcv in incarcerated patients for the period through march in incarcerated patients for the period through march 31, 2017 >> same house, same call without objection the resolution was adopted unanimously >>[gavel] ? item 55 >> item 55 is an ordinance to man planning code to establish the japan town neighborhood commercial district revising very clinical sections to make conforming and other technical changes revising the zoning to add japan town and city in making other appropriate findings >> just quickly, this is in the work that jim had time for many many years at like to thank the japan town has force and bob-for his. steve was a
9:13 pm
met the planning department and all the members of the japan town community came together to make this possible. it's a major step in the right direction and colleagues i would appreciate your support. >> with academically take this item same house, same call? >> matter present, supervisor peskin >> it would add me as a cosponsor of alice abbey so onerous p2 thank you supervisor peskin. colleagues same house same house, same call without objection they were next passing answer stream >>[gavel] >> and 5062 item 56 amended restated grounds for the term of 99 years between the city and o'farrell towers associates property located at 477 o'farrell street for the rehabilitation of 101 units of affordable housing are low and very low income seniors. >> collies, jointed this item same house, same call without
9:14 pm
objection is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> 'let's go back to item the item-which item was that avalos >> 15? item 15. item 15 has been called already. i just want to express to supervisor avalos that i will, at this time, support your amendment to the duplicated file. but this process has been going on for several years. there's been a lot of work get a lot of amendment made. although i do still have some concerns about the technical details and some
9:15 pm
of the issues here, i would like to make sure that there is a very thorough discussion about the proposed amendment at committee and specifically, at the land-use committee. so, i would ask that you would possibly consider moving forward with the amendment to the duplicated file and returning it, the duplicated file to the land-use committee? >> i just want to make sure that this file can get back to the full board of supervisors. >> okay. there's a possibility that i'm sure-well i can't commit anyone's votes but i'm sure colleagues on the land-use committee will be open to that. >> given that makes more sense for legislative process, i will be okay sending it to the land-use committee? okay. so, supervisor avalos is made a motion to make these amendments to the duplicated file and send it back to committee. so, was there a second?
9:16 pm
>> yes i second? thank you supervisor has funded an clerk on the moment for the duplicated file can you please call the roll >> excuse me supervisor wiener >> thank you. i won't be supporting this motion. for quite a few years we worked through and then [inaudible]. there was an enormous amount of back-and-forth over time. the transit committee was various city agencies with the development community and we ultimately brought it to committee and committee supervisor cohen and i supported an increase in the psf even beyond what had been negotiated and a while, believe me as much as anyone want to get as much money for transit as possible, you can always take the position that this fee is not high enough. the fact is, i think we did a good job over a number of years
9:17 pm
producing something that is going to raise hundreds and hundreds of million dollars for transit in the city and respect my colleagues point of view, but i'm not prepared to support this to dick >> thank you supervisor wiener. before i return to you supervisor avalos i like to recommend supervisor campos? visibly know what i noted before which is the way it stands. any were getting significant amounts of time money for transportation were leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table. i think as it stands that the big giveaway to developers. it's appropriate for us to maneuver really are serious about holding them accountable for the impact they have on transportation to actually hold him accountable. that's what this is about. >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> i don't believe of the pointer we actually had made many times throughout the process to make amendments to
9:18 pm
string this legislation to beam bring more revenue for transportation. either it comes to transportation we need to be as bold as we can be. we sell at the planning department saw what was going to be in terms of the cost of the impact of this development and were well below what busy covering the costs of development for noncommercial. we also saw their study showing was financially feasible and with even the two dollar increase i am proposing here in the grandfathering, were still very well below the threshold of making these projects before us , that would be before us, financially unfeasible. so, collies, can you make sense that we try and be as strong as when it's a community process. it's one we can continue on to make sure we can get the current facilities but the city needs desperately for transportation. >> thank you. i want to be clear that my support today for the amendment is in no way my
9:19 pm
support for the legislation as a whole. i just believe it should go back to committee be given a fair opportunity to be discussed and studied and all the facts need to be put on the table. with that, colleagues farrell >> is a motion to amend this and then the original file are we putting up through the same ocean >> that were putting thursday >> organa do that after we finish of the duplicated file. >> maybe supervisor breed i know this was a long process before, i don't feel comfortable that i remain open to it going for. depend on how [inaudible] be voting for today though >> supervisor wiener >> i do want to note agenda because this is limited to commercial am i correct >> yes >> commercial has always paid for 35 years.. the tsf raises
9:20 pm
what commercial pays young with her pain on the key idf and so we keep owing up and up which is great, but at some point you move forward we can keep raising this until the cows come home, but i think we with a good product. so i won't be supporting? thank you. avalos >> one other thing. we've actually seen one we had a recession that are inclusionary fees that were raised or lowered because supposedly projects the higher inclusionary fugate what might happen women of another recession in the future and the feet we establish that is a lower fee would try to get lowered even further. actually [inaudible] transportation needs or portion of our transportation needs in san francisco. further building a lower fee were going to see that can make even diminish further as we try and contemplate how to support the
9:21 pm
development in san francisco. >> seen no other names on the roster mdm. clerk on the proposed amendment to the duplicated file to send back to committee, please call the roll >> campos aye cohen no, farrell no, kim aye mar aye peskin aye tang aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are seven aye and four? the duplicated file as amended will be sent back to committee. >>[gavel] >> with that, can you please call the roll for item 15 >> item 15 campos aye cohen aye
9:22 pm
farrell [inaudible] kim aye mar aye peskin aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye. there are 11 aye? the ordinance is passed unanimously >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk, can we please go to item number 53. >> item 53 a resolution to ratify the purchase and sale agreement between the city and 30 venice holdings the sales city owned property look at 30 venice ave. for $89. >> supervisor kim? project before us 30 venice is also known to this board is a grouping of projects coupled with 1660 mission and 1680 mission which provides a unique opportunity for the city to
9:23 pm
develop new department offices with market rates. in affordable housing. as has been mentioned previously at this meeting, there's been two consecutive propositions that were passed by this boaters of san francisco both in 2014 and 2015. stating that it should be the city goal that 33% of all new housing should be affordable to 60% of the residence. at 50% of the housing should be affordable to those that are low and middle class. most recently in november, 75% of voters said they want to see one third affordable housing built on public land. 40 dennis before us today is publicly owned by the city and this is the first project to come before the board after the passage of proposition k. i want to talk a little bit about the
9:24 pm
transaction that is before us, and appreciate many of the questions it, sticking out of budget committee last wednesday. i think there's certain the concern that the deal that is coming back to this board is $7 million less than what the board authorized back in july. that being said, i do think it was a positive that the discovery pain the transfer tax into mid-august and i understand the cost is impacted by the greater affordability those committed by the developer from 12% to 15% and i do think that is a good commitment but not a good enough commitment when were talking about publicly owned land. this is the reason why i think this incredibly important. we don't have site control over all the parcels here in san francisco. we have limited site control over number public parcels. boaters are stated, and this board has stated, we need to leverage every opportunity to get to those much affordable housing
9:25 pm
and we have the opportunity to do that when we have control as we do in this project. it is not just under any land-use regulation. as market octavia plan would normally require a project to be 12%. we can go above and beyond that. i appreciate that the city has been working to buy back cannot put this on the developers tab the city purchase affordability within the site and get us up to this 32%. as of a couple of things that i've been disappointed by and i wish had been committed to by this point at the fullbore. one, at minimum the developers should commit from 80-target that said no cost to the developer. the task is. that is something that could've been committed today and has been alluded to that would likely happen, but that commitment is not here but we take this vote. the second
9:26 pm
issue that i have is really with how we are buying the affordability back is an issue that's come up with this board and i thought of several times how low are inclusionary housing program fee is. it is a fee that we [inaudible] when you take inevitable we expect the developers and the mayor's office of housing, when they [inaudible] anywhere from 110,000 to 522,000 for four-bedroom, that is what we expect developers to pay to offset therefore the units of the mayor's office of housing build affordable housing. for the project as proposed, they're not to do any four-bedroom but it's a mix of studios that 35%, one bedroom at 25%, two bedrooms at 40%, on average if a off-site there are four units they will pay the mayor's office of housing $284,589 a unit. breast to
9:27 pm
build affordable housing for them. i think what i find incredibly troubling in this transaction is that the city is paying the developer to build affordable housing. so, it's the reverse. we are paying almost double what we would expect the developers to pay. in this case, what is before us the city is going to be paying the developer to build our affordable housing, $533 per unit which would double what would expect that dr. davis agreed advanta currently problematic and i can't support the deal is it come before us today. i think there's a better deal to be had. i surely understand the importance of us move forward with the transaction given the fact. the good will project, and i agree we should be building housing office for city departments. i think is certainly a need, but i think given what the mandate we been given by the voters whom i think affordable housing is certainly the priority that
9:28 pm
would like to see utilize public land. at minimum. while the city is committed to 33% among just not excited about how expensive that affordability is going to be for us to build on our own project. so, those are the significant issues that i see. i see couple of my colleagues also have comments to make. i do have questions but i'll wait until some of the comments are made. >> before i moved to the next name on the roster, is there a represented here from the mayor's office of housing? no? supervisor mar? restart as they cannot keep it as short as i humanly can. or think john updike, director of real estate for expanding the complexity of 30 then asked with the other sites the city is considering. i voted consistently against the project but i appreciate
9:29 pm
his transparency and work it i viewed as surplus city property that should be considered as maximizing housing below market rates. it's an incredible transit oriented development probably the best in the city market and van ness. basil viewed this also as a key issue when 37 line dollars was the minimum or 39, was the minimum we approved and then? 87, supervisor >> and then mr. updike extremely 89+ the additional economic benefits but i still feel like we could write a better deal than i also feel maximizing the affordable housing on the site as supervisor kim is critical. i voted against the first emmy voting against it this time as well. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor yee >> i actually have questions.
9:30 pm
[inaudible]. in regards to the 80-20 peace and supervisor speaking alluded to the fact that there seems to be no commitment towards that at this point, so i want to know for sure whether there's no commitment or there's a tentative commitment or is there a commitment chooses get the 20th this point?? >> john updike director of real spirit there is a commitment to move forward with its called an 80-20 project. as supervisor kim said. the difficulty and locking the commitment is that this is a prospective future events. pdf and 20 projects are dependent on certain federal regulations and certain tax credit available is. we have structured the agreement to
9:31 pm
call for an 80-20 transaction here and a 20% minimum a sign of affordability provided by the developer as a developers expense if they pursue the current program or a program that is similar in nature to the current program. so, the only deviation from a full commitment is that no one in this room can tell us that in two were three or four years would make completed the entire process what an 80-20 program might look like it might be a different administration there could be different federal regulation that it's with that copy. but the commitment is there. we believe sufficiently earned into the personal sale agreement. >> there's a part of me that same, regardless of-and i don't believe that spot [inaudible] is can it go away but if you did, it seems not asking too
9:32 pm
much to ask the developers to commit to it or not. i don't understand why-there pushing for affordability to go up to 40% at this point. and soon to be committing sosa doing that. to understand why this particular government is committed to be 20%? >> they are committed to do that 20% but committed to do that 20% of this continental program is available at the time. perhaps it would be helpful if i give you some background as to the give and take between the finalist candidates relative to pricing and affordability could maybe that would help this discussion if i can do that briefly >> this is all related., even
9:33 pm
would say were looking for more at this point. i think when i supported it things have changed so much in that short period of time. i'd also like to see more, a lot more out of this than what we are seeing on paper. so, the question becomes who would never program that can get us to 30%, and the question is to paint for that, it seems that the city is paying for that. where's the money come from that? wiley paints a much for that? while being the difference if they've committed to having a [inaudible] felipe into $284,000. when we do the difference rather than paying for the whole 500? it's all
9:34 pm
related somehow. >> it may address the question, the difference between the cost of the units on-site, we actually discussed this briefly when this issue came up some time ago in a hearing with supervisor campos called the sale of 30 then i stood up to this time if indeed it was not an office building and was truly a vacant ready for the roman site, why would the mayor's office of housing not pursue a 100% of portable project on that site? his answer, at the time, which was said the mayor's office of q&a to moment doesn't build 40 story high-rise residential units. because of the cost in doing so. so, the cost to reduce what we all want on this rich transit orientated site which would be as much density
9:35 pm
as possible is more expensive than any in roof sites which are often have a destination of wood frame or something less than high-rise construction. further, this developer is committed to one entry at the site. this is not a case of affordable housing debts through a different door, which commonly known as the poor door. this is not the proposal from this developer. this single entry, all patrons of the facility come in through the same door and head to their units and the units are dispersed throughout the building. all of those things have a cost omen to them. the price per unit should be somewhat higher. much higher is a fair question. what we learned in our discussions with all the other respondents is, from the other development teams, highly interested in
9:36 pm
this project that were rated to be finalist, that they are proposed costs onto permanent basis were even higher then the numbers you see today in this agreement from related california. that is yet another tell from the marketplace that this number is a competitive fair number of cost to purchase affordability. the source being are so. that's the source of funds. >> let me reverse that. if the cost is really 584 and that is to be done, can we ask that one of you give us 33% of the units that cost and will give it to the city and will build it ourselves? >> is your question will take
9:37 pm
of funds and build it off-site or build on site? i'm not sure i understand >> i guess maybe trying to make a point that if it costs us the projection is 584, then when we give the city 584 for the number of units that would be considered 33% times 52 584 off-site funding. since they think we could build it at 280 something. >> i'm not sure that math works out to but that would be too high an amount for off-site number. we would negotiate a different transaction. i think you're looking at off-site but the direction i've heard collectively do everything we can for on-site affordability because this is where everyone
9:38 pm
should be able to live in a transit oriented development. that's their fault focus on-site affordability. >> i guess the other part of the question is where did the money come from to pay for this? if we were to agree to it? >> ray. as supervisor kim mentioned, this is part of an orchestrated sale of properties .. the next two sales involve assets in the mission corridor. 1660 and 1680 mission. weaver,, and target of revenue from those sales combined with 30 then this that are in the pro forma for the overall development of one of our potential option by destination options, which was mentioned by the supervisor. the target
9:39 pm
target, we believe will be exceeded. i will create additional unexpected revenues that can be put back into this project to purchase affordability. that's funding source number one. funding source number two is this development itself will generate two different fee structures that we have the administrative ability to reinvest in the property. again, it's overlaid by both the market and octavia plan in the market at van ness as city. those two funding sources provide an additional $15 million in revenue. we would dedicate those to purchase affordability as well. we believe, between those two sources of revenue, we've identified enough revenues that there's no additional general fund pressure to require a path to 33% based on today's numbers. tomorrow's numbers, the lower. i also want to remind the board, you structured this agreement give absolutely no regulatory relief to related california. so, if there is a change in the
9:40 pm
dynamics of our regulatory role that changes the baseline affordability, and i know that's a certainly a topic of discussion in the community know, they have no relief to fun of. often meet that target. the subsidy from the city, if you are called from that comes in this transaction could go away is say 26% is the new 12% as an example. so i just want to remind the board of that fact that we built that into the agreement and that agreed to that. >> just less quick question. it can be 500 units were talking and i don't know how many [inaudible] that's a lot of units. i asked this very developments. are you planning to build a childcare center there? is in and of aye. do
9:41 pm
you know the answer to that? >> that's a good question and a concern of ours. as you know the childcare center is a vital part of our proposed development currently in ceqa on the goodwill site separate and apart from this. here as well we've asked the developer to commit, without question, to a childcare center on promises. they have done so. so, we believe that would be a minimum size of most like 5000 ft.2 plus associated outdoor areas that would be on the second level terrace similar to what we are designing at the octavia site. we recommend and were pleased to deliver the commandments. >> thank you supervisor yee supervisor wiener? thank you. i have some more questions for you. >> i asked more questions for you. first of all, you alluded to this before but is this [inaudible]
9:42 pm
>> at the present time, we have 150,000 ft.2 of office space occupied by the department of public works, deviation host of other city staff. this is only a asset that can be sold if there is a destination to which those hard-working city employees can go to. >> my understanding of the definition of surplus property has always been that property were not using. we have access property that's sitting there whether it's a piece of land or a building we are no longer using. so, we are certain policies but how we use that site or with the proceeds are used for.this is a city office building that is being proposed for sale. so the proceeds can
9:43 pm
move a few blocks away to find another city project. if we don't have that money, or if we have a reduced amount of money because the economics of the transaction change then we will have less money to fund the city obligation on that other site about project two blocks away. i assume that from the will come from the general fund?? that is a fair assumption >> i think that's important presumably if we change what were asking the developer and assume that's a choice we have, we want you to do more below market rate units order that case may be, presumably that will affect the sale price. the building meaning the city gets less. we get less. that's less money to get transferred over to the goodwill site and then we have to make up the difference from other city
9:44 pm
money. so, we are paying for it either way. i think it's misleading to suggest otherwise. magic money that falls down from the sky. so, if the sale goes through, what is deemed tiedemann process for this building?? as a measure would provide no revelatory relief to the developer so the developer would then have to engage in the entitlement process whatever outcome comes from that. the estimated density of 500 units is consistent with current rocket in octavia height limits of 400 feet on the site. so within market inactivate a likely can achieve that but we fully expect them to other issues that might be
9:45 pm
outside the bounds of market and attribute in the have to go through that ceqa prosecute? desert acquired conditional use?? that's a good question that's unclear at this time. >> at a minimum this has to go ? unclear or he doesn't know the answer? >> supervisor peskin you have not been recognized. >> my apologize? supervisor wiener >> were not entitling the project and that entitlement is what is currently subject to what the rules are that the charter amendment which i assume there will be, next year that changes the baseline affordability levels. this will be subject to that change?? >>. that's cricket is to codify my statement is no design to mature design of the site. so it's unclear as to the rogatory process because it is unclear as to what the design would be precise. >> your for to a height before.
9:46 pm
>> yes consistent with market activity we know how may stories the building could possibly have and can estimate best in market activity requirement for tower size, forbade size, units >> i do know the portion of market octavia in my district and upper market, there projects significantly smaller i understand the heights of god to conditional use process even though we don't have the planning department here it may be discovered through additional use but certainly be [inaudible]. so can you also just in terms of the number of -if this is built out to the zoning the maximum number of units, need number of units is
9:47 pm
that?? were estimated 500 units? how many below market rate units? >> the commitment of the developer sitting 80-20 transaction which is a fair assumption here, that's 100 units of affordable housing. >> that if we don't to the increased to 33%?? we would have an ability to buy an additional 13% of additional units, correct. >> so, colleagues, i'll be supporting this project today. this is providing significant amount of affordable housing. this is not the 5m project if this is not mission rock. this is not surplus property. this is party that's being sold by the city so that we can use those funds to finance our and other project the city is doing a few blocks away. as i mentioned a few minutes ago, if we change the economics, which
9:48 pm
absolutely if this boards to decide to change the economics if the developer agrees to, if we do reduces the purchase price of means would have less money to finance that other project. i think that the sale makes sense to be supporting it today. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you. sorry for that interjection a moment ago. first of all, let me say i very much appreciate the role that the city's department of real estate has played. i realize this is a new frontier for our department of real estate and is a departure from the normal day-to-day business of leasing and acquiring properties and this is a remarkably complex transaction could so, slight salute mr. updike and his colleagues in that department. but, respectfully submit to all of you, as somebody who has spent most of his adult life in
9:49 pm
the business of real property sale and acquisition, that we respectfully are leaving a little too much money on the table. as i just said to the natural acquirer of this land and rc staff, if that number is 10%, that's an extraordinarily large number. the best way in real estate to figure out the fair market value is with a true auction. in this particular case, i was first exposed to the market rate was an offer that exceeded $90 million. subsequently, when was exposed to the market this body was told that $87 million would be the lowest bid, and
9:50 pm
yet, what is before us in this contract today is almost 10% lower than that at $80 million. i appreciate the line of questioning through the president to supervisor wiener that you got done, but i think we actually need some legal counsel and while i used to play legal counsel on tv, i'm not a member of any bar although i've been to a couple. i look at exhibit b to the grant deed and specifically, the deed restrictions in section 2. to the president to the deputy city attorney that represents the board of supervisors, i have some concerns and counselor, if you might be able to respond to me and this body as to whether or not, if we enter into as a matter of contract, with a
9:51 pm
prospective buyer, a deed restriction that limits the project to 15% on-site or 20% off-site. if subsequent as super supervisor wiener alluded to, this board were a charter amendment changes that would that obviate the contract that this city entered into as of today were this to be passed? >> john given her supervisor to understand the question, mike i can't answer off the top of my head. what you're suggesting is the contract itself would provide between 20% and give the city the option and sole discretion to purchase up to 33%. it conflicts with a deed restriction which sets the 15-20% provision. you're asking if there were a situation where the city wanted to purchase the extra of two of 213-18%, would
9:52 pm
we actually have the ability to do that given the language of the deed restriction? >> or stated differently, counselor, if we, in good faith, sold to this company right now, this piece of property, subject to these restrictions, and we subsequent as a lawmaking body and rogatory agency change the rules to that game, with the buyer have a legitimate argument that if we or the voters change the percentage of affordable housing that the voters have mandated not once but twice, would they have a plausible argument that it did not apply to them because as a matter contract, as set forth in exhibit b that we in good faith sold to them for $89 without restriction and could not change the rules subsequent? >> again that's because the contract itself provides that
9:53 pm
is the city and rogatory capacity increases the inclusionary affordable requirements. that will be binding. i'll be the new minimum but i does one make sure i understand the question. that conflicts the specific language of the key restriction? >> correct >> not something i think i can answer on the fly on my feet but i'll take a look and may not be something i can answer during this hearing frank rivera wantagh will write real estate colleagues? i totally respect that. i valvoline, colleagues, a number of what i believe to be incontrovertible fact. it's first exposure to the market wherein at north of $90 million was an offer. the subsequent representation to this body that $87 million would be the minimum bid. the actual number that is before this body today at $80 million. i'm not interested in clearing
9:54 pm
this day. i believe i am a member, i believe we are all members of the board of directors of the municipal corporation and our fundamental job is to get as much for our shareholders, the people of the city and county of san francisco as we can. with all due respect to our department of real estate, i think we have not got that in this day. not only this side of the deal, the mission street side of the deal. through the president to supervisor wiener, if you analyze the 16-80 the goodwill side of the deal, and you look at what a few developer is making in this particular transaction at 5%, where there is no risk and by the way there's no risk on the 30 van
9:55 pm
ness side on the deal is good in this business, it's all about risk. reward is a function of risk. on the mission street side, what is the average feed him and get into deal like this to percent. 2.5, 3%. what are we getting for our $80 million that require plow out of 30 van ness into 1680 mission? 5%. i have no animus towards the buyer, towards our staff, but i actually think we can sharpen our pencil and do better on this deal. even if we do the 10% better that was the original representation at 87 million, we pay for all of our salaries for the rest of our terms in office. i submit that
9:56 pm
to you colleagues and respectfully ask you to join supervisor kim and myself in voting no on item 53 in its current incarnation. thank you for your time >> thank you. supervisor campos >> my office actually called for a hearing on this because-i'm glad were having this discussion because we reason we call for we went the extra step of calling for a separate hearing on this item even though it's an item in supervisor kim's district and we want to check with her because i really believe that this one the most important actions were taking around the issue of housing.. going back to what supervisor yee was saying i do feel this deal has gotten-well, i don't know if it's got better because it's not clear, but the question for me when i hear from supervisor kim who is asking us to vote
9:57 pm
against this right now, is, what would happen this project were different. that's how i see it and i think you probably , if this weren't district 7, and you are to explain and justify to your constituents, is this really not even the best deal but is this really a good deal for the city, for artistic? i don't know if i could say that. if were district 9. what so disconcerting about this, and i have-am representing a district that includes the mission which is a neighborhood that has come to this board asking for more housing. what struck me about this deal is that here we have a property that we actually own, and yet, we are not actually getting from this developer would we would expect
9:58 pm
from a property that is owned by somebody else. if any developer came to us with a guarantee along the lanes as was described by the department of real estate who would've rejected that deal because the 20%, even 20%, is not really a guarantee because there is a big if in there. the if it's the risk on us. can you imagine if the warriors had come to us and said, we are going to agree to all these things, if certain things are true. if the giants had come to that with that ask we would not have approved these things, and yet, here we are going down the path. then, given what's
9:59 pm
happening to neighborhoods a commission. given what is happening to the african-american community, why are we actually pushing back on the property that we own to say, listen, we don't question the staff is working hard. mr. update is a smart decent guy. he's a hard worker, but this is not how we should maximize and leverage property we own. quite frankly, all and with this-i don't think this is just a mr. updike and his department. the fact of the mayor's office of housing is not even here is really problematic to me. because we just passed a bond of $310 million a big part of that bond policewoman from submission be purchasing land because we don't have land that we can build on and identify manned and worked with the department to figure out what we can purchase so we can build affordable housing and yet,
10:00 pm
they're not really that involves in this deal even though they're looking at the piece of land including the mission. lakota messages that set in terms of how city agencies are coordinated? ring that's actually pretty scary. so, look, i really urge my colleagues to vote no on this. i think we allow this to go forward is one of those things in a very short period time we were to say what the heck were we thinking. so, let's send it back to the drawing board, with the understanding that you know what, if we don't do the right thing on this one, then what credibility do we have with private developers to do the right thing on property that they own.
10:01 pm
>> thank you supervisor campos. i wanted to ask questions of a concern that i had because i don't agree of a representative from the mayor's office of housing to address the question. we don't? so, i want to put it out there, what is the biggest concerns i had is a clearer understanding exactly how much were specifically getting for each affordable housing especially when we are spending anywhere between 450 and seven or 50,000 to build affordable housing units off-site and more specifically, information i've got recently from the mayor's office of housing project in particular a long be van ness corridor were acquires the mayor's office browsing the overlay was on that site to pay in excess of $950,000 per unit. so, i think my biggest concern is how much we are getting
10:02 pm
per-unit and what we need to get per unit, justin john. not wanting to cripple us in the future, especially for looking to increase the affordable housing percentage requirements of any property in the city. so, i just have a lot of concerns around the affordable housing deal as it relates to this particular project, and i think supervisor kim, articulated some of those numbers more specifically and i'm trying to get a better understanding of why that deal was made knowing that it won't even cover the unit? the affordable unit? >> if i may address that. although the mayor's office of comedic moment is not here represented in this room right now, that's not to say there were not a logical part of the review team that took us
10:03 pm
through the 15 finalists down to the six, down to the floor down to three down to the one before you know. they been on my side throughout this process and consulting with her brokerage firm. this is not my do. this is the brokerage firms excellence work in their knowledge of perspective and the buyers in the marketplace. with respect to the pricing of our purchase cost, the affordability, that was vetted with the mayor's office of housing community development. they felt comfortable with the numbers presented or i would not be before you today with this transaction. that's considering the extraordinary cost of developing an iconic 40 story residential tower at this location. it's not an inexpensive venture. >> i guess what i want to hear because this is an issue of and working on directly with the mayor's office of housing and knowing how much were spending in the city per unit has been
10:04 pm
really frustrating experience and has created numerous obstacles to actually getting affordable housing built faster because it is so expensive and so just having a clearer understanding of where this is coming from and why this was done and how is this actually going to help us advance our efforts but it's not enough money to pay for the unit. so, that's where i'm at a loss. that's where i've been at a loss with this in particular.? the pricing particularly for the additional 13% they be acquired by the city to get from 20-23%. we have prizes up to 120% of a mate and up to 100 for 50% 150% of ami. those range from four $50,000-$550,000 for each of those. that was reviewed by the mayor's office of housing committee develops and felt them to be appropriate however, i want to make it clear, the agreement sets forth a process
10:05 pm
to determine those cost. there is a requirement of transparency by the developer. a true up of those cost. verifiable and agreed to by the city before any check would be cut back to the developer to pay for that affordability. so, we have those rights to open the books and ensure ourselves that the payment made is appropriate for the cost incurred. >> supervisor kim >> thank you. i actually want to compare apples to apples. i want to clarify a couple things. first my opening comments about my largest issues with this transaction which in the case where developer decides not to build in a affordable housing on-site we asked them to pay a fee for mayor's office of housing to build affordable housing instead
10:06 pm
and i said that on average this project given the mix of units of the building studios-two-bedroom, that would amount to roughly $284,589 per unit. but in the reverse case where the cities asking the developer to build the affordable housing, we are going to be double that amount, $533 per unit. when it fails to mention in the case where the developer pays the mayor's office of housing were building units at for individuals making 55% of average median income. so that individual makes $39,250 e. those units require a lot of subsidies could in this reverse case where we are paying double what we'd expect it developer to pay the mayor's office of housing were letting them build hundred percent of ami. which requires far less subsidies than a unit for 55% ami. so, this individual is thinking $85,000. not only are we paying double what are developers they were letting them build much less subsides you get past the first thing.
10:07 pm
the second thing supervisor wiener had brought up the definition of surplus property and he asked if the definition of surplus property is one that had [inaudible] those appropriate definition of utilized previous november 3 of this year, before we revise the surplus property owner ordinance in 22, that was how we define surplus property and how we would build housing for the family homelessness. what about legislation has good intent it was not powerful enough to for the city to build affordable housing. in fact, over 13 years and all the surplus property we likely had we only built two projects. 150 otis and [inaudible]. because of that many of the advocates claim-and we work with them to revise the surplus property ordinance-so we can make it a more powerful tool for the city to build more affordable housing on public lands. this past 75% of the vote a month
10:08 pm
ago. we extended the definition that it's no longer just parcels that the city use. we would get city parcels that are underutilized. we also look at city parcels that 1% utilized that opportunity says. we also state for projects were building a high number of units that we can build at market rates because it can be difficult as the mayor's office of housing said to build 1% affordable housing when the building 500 units. winners in market rate units need to subsidize the below market rate units. so, 30 then asked balls under the definition of what has been passed by the voters this past november. dr. used to allow the to promise to allow the property to the board cannot determine what surplus property. in fact you will now require a list of all the real estate because we're fine
10:09 pm
before they were actually hitting a lot of property over. is a very different scenario. now i want to get to comparing apples to apples. supervisor wiener had brought up we can expect a smaller development to build as much affordability as we would with a five in project or john's project we are building 600 units, 1000 units, it's a bit disappointed that's only going to build 500 units which is still fairly significant. october the project in our district were negotiating right now with developers building 391 units and that's 160 fulsome. so to slightly smaller projects in a single parcel both with public land involved. 164 fulsome is doing 391 units. that's a proposed 30 venice 502 160 fulsome that we've got a commitment of 40% affordable. here with 30 venice 33% affordable. in 160 fulsome they're building homeownership units between 120% of ami. this
10:10 pm
project a little different. i assume the 13% will be 55% of ami and the rest the cities got plowed back will be only 120% ami. this is the biggest mistake of the city is their economy back into the once this -they're also building a certain percentage of the affordable and will be subsidizing them of that is were proposing this case. in the case of 160 fulsome ocii has worked out a deal where we are paying $252,000 per unit to build housing bill be affordable to residents and make between 100-1 harbors 20% of ami put in the case of 30 venice were building rentals at 101st 20% of ami pain over double that. $533,000 per year. so i know we can do better do. because were doing it at 160 fulsome. so, it's not hypothetical of can we do it in the smaller singular projects. we know that we can because were currently negotiating the deal is to come before the board in a couple of months. so, i think that for
10:11 pm
multiple reasons what is before this board just is not good enough. we can do better. finally, to the supervisor norman yee whether the developer is committed toward percent yes the developer he stated he would like to build the 20% but if you read the actual real estate transaction, what it says the developer will build a minimum of 15% affordable. to say that electability toward percent is not the same thing as what is before the board today which only states a minimum of 15%. we could've put something in this duet said no less than 20% unless, for some reason, the market fall through but that's just not what's in the contract that is before us today. so, kali surmising we can do better. i think with another project that's moving through the process right now is good
10:12 pm
indicated that we can do better and with that you can look like and so at this time i asked you not to support what is before us today. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> mr. update, i want to give her sons to some of the issues that supervisor peskin and supervisor kim hebrides. in respect to the sales price of $89 supervisor peskin had mentioned was initially i think going to be 87 or $90 million and can you just explain how the process works and how $80 million was arrived at and whites 87 my dollars? >> happy to supervisor wiener. when we were before the last signatory to federalize this transaction, none of the firms i completed all their due diligence. that due diligence process resulted in the discovery that 30 venice's seismic condition and some other conditions were less favorable than anticipated. in
10:13 pm
some ways invalidated staffs prior statements that we are if we remain at 30 venice were likely looking at a $60 million rehabilitation cost in order to remain at 30 van ness. please, understand the developer who's buying up property prices, where it is, has to look at the viability of the existing building. there is the chance, no developer might take place. we do-we can't predict exactly what will happen in the future so a developer doing the good work must do their diligence but their asset we are offering. so, that led to a decline in the pricing as a result of those discoveries. this particular transaction before you now has completed the due diligence period. that signed off. that means the money on deposit $7.5 million sitting in escrow reading reading the boards decision. that becomes available to the
10:14 pm
city indo fault but were not there yet but that due diligence period is expiring few we have all knowledge, all faults of the building have been discovered and incorporated into this transaction. so that's the driver of that. >> thank you. in terms of the contract itself supervisor peskin raised the issue of whether the city would actually be up to change the revelatory requirements. for example, increase the required affordability to go back to the voters and say which imagine more likely do, change the charter and of whether that would be binding on the consideration of this consummation of this contract. noon edition of this contract. can you talk about what the contract provides in terms of future purgatory changes the for this project is ultimately entitled because, again, as i understand it, we are simply
10:15 pm
approving the sale and it has to go through its entitlement process which is not a sure process in san francisco and a lot of requirements can be imposed on a project in the entitlement process and will be very surprising to me if there is sale of a property we were to somehow, i think would be impossible or very hard to find that entitlement process. because we don't know what can happen in that entitlement process in the whole point of that entitlement process is to hash out these issues. can respond to that concern about the contract binding? >> sure. i'm not pretending to be counsel on this item, but working with a real estate counsel, this language in the
10:16 pm
purchase and sale agreement, section 3.2, was carefully crafted with the intent to give no comfort from a revelatory standpoint to the buyer of the property. it would be very easy for us before closing-i'm sure the prospective buyer here would agree, we can reiterate the terms and conditions of 3.2 in the cited exhibit, in the deed, so there's absolute certainty and no confusion about those. i want to consult with counsel on that we feel confident we can close that loop and correct that issue, if indeed it is an issue. i'm not saying necessarily it is but it could be very easily resolved prior to closing >> my question is when your negotiators understand you're not a lawyer but seems like you give instructions is what the negotiations and economics of the deal were. the deal you negotiated was that the regulatory-that the sale does
10:17 pm
not anyway tied her hands to change revelatory skin, including affordability between now and it time that the entitlements are granted on this project. >> that is correct. >> thank you >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor peskin >> i realize it's getting close to wait but i like to reiterate what supervisor kim said and specifically, direct all of us to the words in the purchase agreement. that would be the agreement for sale of real estate 30 van ness. that would be the agreement for sale of real estate 30 van ness ave., san francisco, ca at page 2, section 3.2 that read it together. it says buyer acknowledges and agrees that city would not sell the property unless the buyer
10:18 pm
[inaudible] agrees that if the property is redeveloped as a residential developments, buyout will develop the property in accordance with certain conditions and covenants as detailed women exhibit b the deed restrictions which are previously referred to which requires the provision on site of inclusionary units as defined in section 415 of the planning code a minister by the cities mayors office of housing and community development, which is not here this evening, for not less than 15% of the total residential units within the project. this is a 500 unit developments. i think we've turned the corner. i watched from a distance not as a member of this board was a member of the public, mdm. pres. and colleagues, as the 12% number has consistently been exceeded. it is exceeded here at anemic 15%. old makes this property different than other properties is it is a piece of property that is owned by the people of the city and county of san francisco. if
10:19 pm
there's any place that we can insist on a higher level of affordability, if there's any place where this board can demonstrate its commitment to dealing with these housing affordability crisis, it is on this piece of property. it is real. it is meaningful. and it is symbolic about what this board stands for. i, again career eight, i appreciate the work that our staff has done, but i think we need to send a message this evening that that work is not good enough. i think all of you have been trying to deal with this affordability crisis, but the mandate of the election that happened in november is that we have to do more. this, colleagues is that opportunity.
10:20 pm
>> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, mdm. clerk can you please call the roll on the item. >> item 53 supervisor campos no cohen aye farrell aye kim no mar no peskin no tang aye wiener aye yee no avalos no breed know there are four aye? this item fails. >>[gavel] >>" next item. >> attic rec committee reporting item 69 to 70 please call him together.
10:21 pm
>> item 69 to 70 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee ever read the meeting on thursday, december 3 at 1030 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee ever read the meeting on thursday, december 3 at 10:30 am and move forward as committee reports. item 69 ordinance to authorize some in a lawsuit filed by john russo industrial sheetmetal inc. during business as jr against the city for $2.1 million held on june 17, 2010 in alameda county superior court. item 70, ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by new cingular wireless against the city for approximately $3 million filed on may 27 in los angeles superior court. >> rollcall vote >> item 70 and 71. excuse me. just for clarification, 69, 70 and 71. campos aye >> not on seven. >> 69 and 70
10:22 pm
>> six 970 campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye speed peskin aye tang aye wiener aye wiener aye avalos aye >>[reading] aye 11 aye >> that portis is passed on first reading >>[gavel] >> anarcho please call the item 71 through 73 together. >> item 71 resolution to approve a millsap historical property conduct between trust: league and charlene 722*street not pricing the planning director to execute this vertical property contract >> item wizard to act between it was seven montgomery the
10:23 pm
owners of it was 7 montgomery st. and the city and authorizing the planning director and the assessor to execute the historical poverty contract. item 73 resolution to prove mills act probably contract between ardell josie san francisco the owner of 761 posted in the city and to authorize the director and the assessor to execute this vertical property contract. >> mdm. clerk, supervisor peskin >> effect as for one-week continuance on one supervisor peskin >> effect as for one-week continuance on one week 72 montgomery st. i have some questions i would like to ask of staff that are not here this evening and is in district 3. if i could just ask that promotion to continue that item one week to december 15. >> supervisor peskin made a motion to continue item 72 one-week to december 15. moved
10:24 pm
and seconded. college, take this without objection. without objection, item 72 is continued to the meeting of . without objection, item 72 is continued to the meeting of december 12, 2015. >>[gavel] >> rollcall on item-actually can we take 71 and 73 same house, same call without objection the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> next item, please >> item 74 resolution to approve an agreement with nonprofit owners association administration and management of the seven property-based committee benefit district known as the europe of atlanta committee benefit through june 30, 2030 >> same house, same call without objection adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 75 >> and 75 resolution proven agreement with nonprofit owners association to administration management of these thousand
10:25 pm
property-based green benefit district known as the dot that's in northwest the duracell through june 30, 2025. >> same house, same call without objection resolution adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 7062 and 76 resolution to approve the agreement with nonprofit owners association for ministration management the savage property-based committee benefit district known as the greater bank on hill committee benefit district for the period june 30, 2030 >> same house, same call without objection resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 77 >> item 77 consumed by the land-use transportation committee and regular meeting on monday summer so that was forwarded as committee reports. it's a resolution to temporarily close the public sidewalk on second street two new montgomery said on june 11 5 pm-10 pm >> same house, same call without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> all right. where are we?
10:26 pm
>> conduction of new business >> under rollcall for introduction. everyone be submitting except for me. i'm just getting to mdm. clerk. >> supervisor campos >> i have everyone else doesn't it. >> supervisor dan >> thank appreciate your time and consideration for very important matter that i do want to discuss with you today. you all know the listen officer involved shooting on wednesday we've all watched the reports. there's going to be a series of hearings i'm going to be introducing over time. i welcome anyone that wants to join in with me for cosponsorship. and i do want to acknowledge cause i reach out to me, who've been incredibly supportive not only giving advice on how to handle but also emotionally supportive
10:27 pm
supervisor avalos came to one of our neighborhood-i don't call -vigils and i recognize you for that. thank you. this been tremendous brotherly sister love that's come out of the mission. the mission piece clapboard of just an absolutely incredible. i am introducing a hearing request to evaluate our police studies here in sentences. this hearing request to explore alternatives to the use of force and to re-examine the san francisco police moment general orders. i'm specifically calling general orders 2.07 police officer disciplined process followed by 5.01, use of force and 5.02, police use of firearms. this is an opportunity for us to come to the table and discuss the policies we have that govern
10:28 pm
the city. i look forward to moving ahead with all the stakeholders including the community joking really begin to continue to identify implement long-overdue reforms to our law enforcement system and also to be evaluate our existing policies which are crucial, as we continually work to rebuild the trust and more importantly the transparency between law enforcement and the public. the rest i will submit. >> thank you. supervisor farrell? colleagues, i want to today we continue to be talked about in san francisco as technology innovation capital of the world but i think were all painfully aware of the board of supervisor on city's technology has been lagging far behind for some time. i store number about 4.5 years ago, to the board of supervisors having our e-mail system beyond lotus
10:29 pm
notes the painful transformation and that was. thank you mdm. clerk for our support during that period of time here i'm sure most of you are aware as the city would maintain a high-speed fiber-optic facility to provide internet connectivity to run city departments and to residents and businesses to projects like free wi-fi market street and public housing sites in san francisco. the importance of internet connectivity in today's world can't be understated. it's no longer a nato but i continue to say we should talk about in terms of the economic right and i think you need to be treated as utility not only here in sentences go but as a federal government arctic classifies it as such earlier this year. in our ongoing discussions expand these categories of the city government is critical to understand the current state. so, i have to be-conduct a survey of our city to province catalog their fiber assets in order to see a we can manage them going forward. the report
10:30 pm
was released last thursday and found responsibility for fiber network assets dispersed among and within many different city departments. it's incomplete. kept in different databases in many instances paper records and for my perspective, having simply a critical understanding of what we have in getting our own house in order first is necessary step to move forward. the report found although city determines can estimate the length of fiber under the control they don't have a centralized competent database to pull that information from. it also made two key recommendations to consider legislation to consolidate consider as this did reporting as well as consolidating responsibility for dysfunction potentially today but for tomorrow going for. that's why today with supervisor eric mar i want to thank you for his leadership in this area over
10:31 pm
the past number of years amid using a ordinance require our city to develop a map and catalog of our city-owned fiber-optic assets. right now, i will say that this is the anticipated to be under the purview of the qc which is one of our city agencies that has number of fiber assets under our ground. however, having continuing talk with other technology and look forward to finding the proper home for this. however, as the federal government did classify broadband internet as utility earlier this year that the puc would be the appropriate home for this, but if you are sure this is practical going for. we will have those discussions potentially committee is not before. it does set the stage as well for future discussions around broadband expansion here in the city of san francisco. i didn't do my believers we need to get our own house in order before we span the future. the recommendation couldn't be more clear. i look forward to discussions ahead and thank you
10:32 pm
supervisor mar for your support and the rest estimate >> supervisor campos >> today i'm actually >> supervisor kim >> te deum asking to draft legislation they're sharing economy bound package. san francisco has been a conversation over the past few years but in particular is experiencing unprecedented change. many which has been posited are envious amen success and growing wealth. however, what this change were experiencing unprecedented displacement large and small in many ways when you talk to your neighbors and your friends across the city, we also threatened with this license from the city we love others or income could far too many families displacement comes in the form of addiction a literal expulsion from the home and the neighborhood. the real estate
10:33 pm
prices and rents at an all-time high displacement is also painful reality that only the very wealthy can afford to buy or rent a home here in san francisco. a recent poll commissioned by todd go last week showed that 60% of san franciscans are very concerned that rent is due out. 62%. another 15% is somewhat concerned that rent is due. only 3% in the poll stated it was not a concern are not very concerned. overwhelming number of those that took this poll also stated if they had to move today that they would not be able to afford to live in san francisco. there's a pervasive sense were using the city that we love one community at a time. but we do not have to the city they used to be-what used to be san francisco is inevitable. i believe that with political will and community support we can save the soul of our city over the past few
10:34 pm
years have been successful moving for new affordable housing production and demanding developers make room for the rest of us as a profit from building new housing overall and proud my district has created more affordable housing than any the part of the city and in fact we are building over 50%. we need more supply of all kinds of housing to meet the growing demand generated by those moving here and we've done other things do with acted to protect businesses thank you supervisor campos. we've increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour and we've also unanimously passed earlier this year increase protections for our tenants. but there's still much more to do to ensure san francisco remains a home for all this. that is why today i'm proposing they're sharing economy package of legislation which will make sure those are profiting from the change in san francisco also pay to protect. so as we change we can change for the better and not for the worse. so i'm requesting today that the city attorney began to draft
10:35 pm
an ultra luxury housing fee go increase by quarter percent the transfer tax paid on buildings and luxury homes and condos that sell for more than $5 million. we can't stop people from coming to san francisco and creating a market for luxury homes but we can make sure the market forces that incentivize building luxury homes also protects san francisco and contributes to building more affordable housing to keep san franciscans here. i'm also ask as part of this real estate transfer tax that we create a new bracket for sales over $25 million in effectively the first sitting california to do so. we will create 3% bracket for sales of luxury homes, luxury condos and buildings that are over $25 million. working with the controller's office over the last couple of months, we have found that this would generate close to $32 million a year on average over 10 year period. although this new rate may not be limited to other residential
10:36 pm
buildings it's worth noting in new york is a mention tax which a 1% surcharge paid by the buyer on residential sales of more than $1 million. this proposal is approved by voters as a mention will generate close to $32 million a year that we can use to build more affordable homes, private transit services we need to fix muni, the parks, public spaces, libraries and other services we want and need. again, i want to thank and acknowledge the controller's office who's been working closely with us for the last four months to come up with a couple seems how we can do this and also knowledge drafting several proposals for what we can to protect our city. part of this package i also want to examine other revenue sources get a muscle asking the city attorney to draft an increase to the nightly fee paid by hotel desks and san francisco with her love of the sharing economy this past november as the largest operator, hotel operator bmb campaigned [inaudible]. the
10:37 pm
sharing economy is reality the generated benefits many did a largely unregulated industry also pose a legitimate questions about who is that these benefits and how to mitigate the impact on the housing market which has been further exacerbated by units being taken off the market for short-term rentals. we should share in a fair way that benefits everyone. this 1% increase in what is called our transit will generate up to $27,000,000.02. funds that we can spend on housing homeless families addressing mental health and substance abuse for most honorable resins and other programs that keep san francisco the panel need city were proud in the world can't wait to visit. based on the controller's website this week the first time there's an increase on this tax in san francisco since 1996. would you be 20 years next year. i would like to board my colleagues to
10:38 pm
consider dedicating these funds for mental health and substance abuse services especially for those that cannot afford the treatment such as very low income residents and are homeless residents. these are just a few of the ways that i think this work this board can act to protect san francisco and when approval it will make a real difference for so many of our residents struggling renters homeless families and those that are fighting to stay in the city and stay in the city that we love. i think the choice is clear. when we asked the question, i have to say, are we all stronger when were all doing better and if the lowest level amongst us we all do better? colleagues whom i look forward to kicking off this dialogue over the next components these are just proposals and i think we have a number of months to discuss with the best revenue source are and also even whether we should dedicate these funds to specific services or needs intercity bus. the rest i submit? supervisor mar
10:39 pm
>> welcome to supervisor asking for rejoining the sport. i want to thank supervisor farrell for the city infrastructure data and reporting transverse. i think it's long overdue. i think my angle in support and cosponsoring is to really keep focused on digital inclusion and the huge digital vibe that exists in the city with seniors , kids and families and low income and also many middle income people that can afford that expediting big cities like chattanooga and austin many others that are claimed to be -cities we should be in the forefront and if we can't even find where our fiber networks are, wherein some trouble right now, i think it hopefully the work that supervisor farrell are doing grassroots committees can really help make sure our city stays in the forefront of
10:40 pm
digital cities nationwide today i'm also directing the city attorney's office to draft legislation with a coalition of disability rights in grassroots people with disability organizations. we call it the bill of rights for people with disabilities in city employment. i want to thank johnson lines in particular of the fdr card for spearheading a lot of our work. thanks two-mayor's office on disability and joanna-ffor their key work. the mayor's office on disability in the disability council and the task force that's when working with us on dignity implement rights for people disability in city employment. i also want to just say that people with disabilities, it's widely known are only one third as likely to be employed as people who don't have disabilities. we are trying to make changes so that we can put the script on that. also, important people disabilities is about dignity for employment for basic value
10:41 pm
of people in society. i think it's about giving people an opportunity to be financially independent. it's not a canada. bringing invaluable people into city employment. it's also a cultural shift that's needed in the city as we learn from the 8825 year anniversary of the american visit with disabilities act the cultural shift has to be about seen people disabilities is a great benefits for our departments and our city employment and normalizing issues surrounding reasonable accommodation for them as they work not just at entry level positions at all levels throughout the city government as well. lastly on to thank the grassroots coalition has come together to demand and work with us on passing a bill of rights for people with disabilities in city employment. the rest i will submit >> supervisor peskin >> i've nothing to say. >> supervisor tang >> supervisor wiener >> supervisor the? if it's
10:42 pm
okay with supervisor cohen i like to be a cosponsor of your bank the rest estimate >> supervisor avalos >> i also want to cosponsor supervisor cohen and red as the leadership she's taken especially with her district and the immense pain. it's been really disconcerting to me that the police department has been there a tone deaf to what's been going on and the feelings of the people in the neighborhood in district 10 notes a across the city as well. just the efforts of the police department who explained what was going on with the video is completely in convert only controversial. it's very understandable how they're putting out their version of things that it speaks rate poorly for the department. some very interested in seeing how we can get some answers and
10:43 pm
better answers look forward to participating in the hearing. yesterday, as well, the land-use committee has looked at the super bowl festivities event happening in the city. there was actually nothing was particularly alarmed. i think our role on the board is to shed light on what's happening in the city and how reason our city resources for events like this. the apartments were very very dismissive of us are questions we had to ask magically asking about costs with the impacts the general fund were going to be. of all the apartments that spoke about their plans, i was really glad to see that the mta have put together a lot of really good plans but how they would stage transit facilities around the area, but they cannot tell us what the cost was going to be. lisa berman could really cause with the impact is going to be, which stations were going to be involved and how would one
10:44 pm
point officer said that there will be minimal staffing move from our neighborhood districts to the event were no staffing move to neighborhood just next to the event but it turns out to be staffing coming from the districts to the event. so not quite sure what that person was saying. we know this can be immense costs. so far there've not been any permits or decisions that were made about the super bowl before us on the board of supervisors did it's really important we get in front of it before the cost gets out of control. so, just as the budget analyst provide some information for us. yesterday we were told by the department that they were budgeted to do work for the super bowl and then from the luminary draft information from this budget analysts who pulled from the apartments, there's nothing in their budgets. please, fire only wb, mta is
10:45 pm
nothing budgeted for the event but we know the costs are going to be good with good handle on. i'll be asking and appreciate supervisor cohen as well making a request on the budget analyst to track with the spending is going to be. for the super bowl and how we can make efforts to clamp down on what could be costs that could estimate as refund a corporate event for the whole world to see. the rest i'll submit >> thank you. pres. breed >> i just want to start by acknowledging supervisor cohen on the recent officer involved shooting in her district. a real tragedy and she has definitely been a leader in trying to work with members of the community, work with the family and try and bring a level of peace and justice to the community. so minor to be a cosponsor in this hearing and looking forward to a very detailed discussion about how we can make sure that legal
10:46 pm
force is not an option in any instance here in rc. are we working closely with supervisor cohen in trying to identify alternatives in trying to make sure we do everything we can to change the culture of this police department so this does not continue to happen. with that, supervisors, type something incredible to announce. today i'm very excited to announce a housing affordability ordinance, which am introducing. today, i'm privileged to represent -neighborhoods each a few blocks from where i grew up and where i've lived all my life. i know why people love these neighborhoods so much and i know how hard it is, especially these days to find homes you can afford and as supervisor kim mentioned earlier, people potentially could be displaced in their current homes they're
10:47 pm
not certain that they can afford anything else in the city. i'm in the same situation where my building in my future is uncertain as well. just imagine the supervisor cannot afford to find something in their district then what are we doing wrong here in the city and county of san francisco? were clearly in a housing crisis and regrets respond accordingly. that is why i'm excited to introduce legislation that will create the highest affordable housing requirements and san francisco history. for the fillmore corridor. under my legislation developments of 10 units or more on private property will be required to include them at least, 23% affordable units on-site or 25% off site. that's nearly double, double the current citywide standard of 12% on-site. last summer the board passed my legislation.
10:48 pm
commercial transit districts along the-and fillmore corridor. the a lot of the districts around the city allowed for more housing units within a giving-given building size. which creates more of verbal units than those set as a percentage of the total units. get more affordable unit units and ship it to rate units without bulk increases for building the and cds were a great first step. but i also want to increase the required percentage of affordable units. unfortunately, 2012 proposition c which the voters passed by huge margin limits the affordable housing rate to 12% and prevents the city from passing laws to raise it. so, we want to increase the requirements on fillmore we were told we could not. we can bask in the planning department. we can asking the
10:49 pm
city attorney and we asked him to study the language and we were told, again and again and again it was not possible. finally, we've found a way to raise affordable housing requirements even under the strict terms of proposition c. i asked the city attorney for the highest percentage possible under state under local law. this week the first time that sony legislation raises housing affordability percentages under proposition c. other large committee planning efforts like eastern neighborhood plan, it'll be the first time that an nct has required increased affordable housing percentages. most of all, it will be the highest affordable housing requirements covered. i should add here, supervisor kim, similar position c at 525 harrison which revolted ontario today. by allowing an exception to the tower separation requirements she was able to increase affordability
10:50 pm
requirement in that building. it is great she was able to do that and i'm happy were finally so increase affordability, but proposition c should not be an obstacle we have to work around. the city's charter should help us build housing for people, not hold us back. that's why i think it's important we go back to the voters in november of 2016 with about measure to raise affordability standards. we can start with good-and fillmore. we've got multiple developers proposed in the neighborhood and we need to act fast to ensure they are as affordable as possible. i will make sure any development contain the highest possible amount of units that neighborhood residents can actually afford. as my legislation moves through, look for to working with the community on what they want in terms of the eligible income levels for the affordable units in the nct. specifically the ami. the neighborhood preference legislation on which i was
10:51 pm
proud to partner with supervisor cohen and so many others will finally guarantee him a finally, the neighborhoods get to live in the affordable units that get built in their community. this legislation for fillmore will guarantee the highest percentage of any neighborhood in the city on private party. so, finally, that we afford units in the neighborhood that residents can actually get to live to get >> thank you. >> i want to thank committee leaders including tim hickey president of the north panhandle neighborhood association and jj strand the past president of the north panhandle the beard association as well as-is also a past president of the north panhandle neighborhood association. horizontal on behalf of the district 5, i'm proud to introduce the highest affordable housing requirement ever. i know i said that like 20 times. i mean it. also,
10:52 pm
college, i have one in the morning and i know the hours late but is it really important in the morning. dave karp was born on dave karp was born on june 4, 1916. he was actually the owner of cole's hardware store. he was born a polish immigrant parents and san francisco attended mission high school. from a young age he showed a strong work ethic sign candy at baseball games and delivering telegrams working at the shipyards during world war ii and in 1959 mr. karp brought the cole's hardware store that is been in the cole's alley neighborhood since 1920. it was a one-man band. pick up merchandise in the morning, stock and mark them throughout the day while helping customers and ringing up sales at the same time. in the evening he visited customers homes to do home repairs and improvements using the stores inventory while his wife marge helps watch the
10:53 pm
store. mr. karp's business grew quickly and it's easy to see why. not only did he have a conference of inventory. he also offered friendly and knowledgeable service. his model can be easily seen a large same at the reddish. there's no strangers here, just friends we have not met. when mr. karp's son, rick, join him as his business partner cole's hardware became even more successful. his father and son duo expanded the business into the neighborhood establish it is today with branches in the bernal heights and rot westerville neighborhood to another, and soon to rockridge in open get mr. karp passed away october 25, 2015. he was a loving husband, father, grandfather and beloved neighborhood leader. he succeeded in death by his sons, rick and larry and four grandchildren. he will be dearly missed and i know the store at whole value be honoring his legacy this
10:54 pm
wednesday. thank you ladies and gentlemen and the rest i submit. >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster that includes the introduction of new business >> thank you. can you please republic,. >> at this time the public may now address the entire board of supervisors corrupted 2 min. on items with the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the minutes and items on the adoption without reference to committee counted items 80-82 bubblegum is not allowed when the item really subject to public comment and a board committee pursuant to the board tools directory marks to the board as old not to individual supervisors nor to the audience. like to display a document on the overhead projector please go a state such an move the document when you like the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> thank you. first speaker please. >> good evening it's almost 10:50 pm i'm peter warfield said dr. barbara users association were for better lobbies for everyone. and
10:55 pm
graduations to the new member. two things. we had a win at the sunshine ordinance task force last month there are serious problems with sunshine at the sunshine ordinance tass force. other users association one case last month. the tass force on san francisco polarities had unlawfully failed to provide a key document regarding video comments. video comments is the library's new public catalog, which comes from the canadian vendor and has many many problems including the fact that it breaks privacy, allows censoring of patrons and you can read more about it in the october and you can read more about it in the october 2015 observer were have an article. very importantly, the sunshine task force is being undermined
10:56 pm
in a variety of ways including inadequate and at times poor support from the city attorney and the clerk of the board. of immediate concern is a set of proposed changes with regard to how complaints are handled. that is now pending in set for hearing next month. the changes would undermine basic open government concerts and even law. for example, the proposals would allow complaints to be not accepted on the judgment of just the clerk's office alone and that decision is previously made by the full task force. be glad to provide additional information and welcome questions here and at our e-mail address, library users 2004 2004@yahoo.com. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
10:57 pm
>> good evening. my name is richard to go i'll be brief. i'm in a situation where i'm having getting conflicting guidance from two different city departments as a homeowner in the city i got along with everyone else and respondwater consumption by large amount including landscaping by 25%. i did that during the standard mechanisms and not to go into that. it's all well and good and have no complaint there. unfortunately, that happened in june. in september i got a letter from the city urban forest rate inspector telling me they want me to plant a street tree in the well of my sidewalk. so, i have one there is a declared water emergency i'm told by one agency apartment to reduce my water consumption and told by another
10:58 pm
one to increase my water consumption. i would just like to ask that in the event-ansari happen that general manager of the public utilities commission has declared a water emergency at some these tree replacement will be suspended until the water emergency is over. i have documents being distributed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> once again rodney joe. i just want to say i'm down here in a very long time. where great day to come out and speak . i like to really think it erin peskin. erin, thank you.
10:59 pm
again i need you down here. it was good to see what up in the potrero hill a while back. when they were fighting the-any spoke on the other wishes and was really welcome to see you. i was hoping he would be here today when i posted some of the issues because you need him down here. the board of supervisors will he take the time to extract somebody's knowledge to make the city work and i think we are ready to do some great things. so, erin, welcome back. let's get moving. we can do it. other than that i just want to speak out on some issues concerning the-we get a lot of traffic over there. get a lot of projects in the works or whether there were fighting
11:00 pm
and we thought one of on the kaiser project and we won on that one. we group called clone responsible he could weaken the group called save the hill. we really need to think about mortgage about this traffic problem in the city. so, erin, if we come to you one day we hope you will get on board with this and fight tooth and nail like we did the washington street project. this a lot of stuff happening around the potrero hill reynaud were going to need your help. welcome back. >> thanks. any other members of the public would like to provide public comment at this time? spew it over, so close >>[gavel] >> madam clerk can we go to our next item, adoption without reference to committee.? item 80-82 being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. i may or
11:01 pm
may object and have it considered separately.? supervisor cohen we do i like to sever item 80? and 81. >> all right. which is take each item in order. >> madam clerk please call item number 80? item 80's and approval of a 90 day extension for planning commission rebuke of a ordinance grade india for housing bonus program.? speak: >> colleagues, this at the request of the supervisor tang she's a few technical cleanup amendments to this resolution. the clerk should be circulating them to you but i'll read them into the orchid on page 2, line 17 but i'll read them into the orchid on page 2, line 17 september 29, 2015 to to october 6, 2015. the second item, second change on page 2 line 25 change every 22nd 2015 to april 3 change every 22nd
11:02 pm
2015 to april 3, 2016. i like to make motion to about these technical moments >> spicer speak on the made a motion to adopt the minutes of the second by supervisor avalos. colleagues. take the minutes without objection get without objection commitment has enormously >>[gavel] >> and click on item 80 can you please call the roll >> item 80 supervisor campos aye speak out cohen aye suite farrell aye kim aye mar aye peskin aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 11 aye >> the resolution as amended in wesley. >>[gavel] >> call item anyone please? item 81 resolution to urge the adoption of the shelter
11:03 pm
monitoring committees recommendations permitting the human services agencies imminent danger policy as it pertains to victims of domestic violence.? supervisor cohen >> slicer supervisor >>, have a policy in which to who which people who self-report are involved in domestic violence incident, both victims and perpetrators are currently denied service in all family shelters for 15 days. no, this was a pretty silly a 30 day period for denial of service until just recently. this is unacceptable given that victims of domestic violence need services the most. so, we are urging hsa to work with the shelter monitoring committee in changing this policy. the resolution before us today,
11:04 pm
supervisor be tank would like to make the following non-cousin of amendment first. i find the policy our house with the city funded family shelters and not a formally adopted hsa policy. second, for consideration, amending line 17 page 1 from 30 days to 15 days to reflect the recent change in policy.? thank you supervisor cohen. sit moved and seconded. carlito tapia mimicked without objection speaker without objection the amendment passes unanimously. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, we take item 81 as amended same house, same call without objection item 81 the resolution is adopted as amended. unanimously >>[gavel] >> it into mdm. clerk >> no one has anything on
11:05 pm
agency. can you please call item to speak of motion to write the budget website analyst to conduct a performance audit, services in san francisco. >> colleagues, canepa this item same house, same call without objection the motion is adopted unanimously. >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk. >> yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual on behalf of pres. breed the late mr. dave carr. >> mdm. clerk, is there any more business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> colleagues, we are adjourned. see you next week. >>[gavel]
11:06 pm
[train whistle blowing] global warming. [whistle blows] some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away. 30 years? that won't affect me. [brakes screech] man: 60-inch screen, high-definition. football season is coming up. you can watch it right here. what do you think? i'll take it. huh! huh! now, that's what i'm talking about.
11:07 pm
you're right. i don't need it.
11:08 pm
>> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay.
11:09 pm
[ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer
11:10 pm
by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park.
11:11 pm
i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here.
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
11:15 pm
11:16 pm
11:17 pm
♪ >> welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined. we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody.
11:18 pm
hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety. >> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim.
11:19 pm
>> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play
11:20 pm
some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. >> from more information, visit >> i'm warren corn field and we are doing a series called stay safe, we are going to talk about staying in your home after an earthquake and taking
11:21 pm
care of your pet's needs. ♪ >> here we are at the spur urban ken center and we are in this little house that was built to show what it is like in san francisco after an earthquake. we are very pleased to have with us today, pat brown from the department of animal care and control and her friend oreo. >> hi. >> lauren. >> could you tell us what it would take after an earthquake or some other emergency when you are in your home and maybe no power or water for a little while. what it would take for you and oreo to be comfortable and safe at home. >> just as you would prepare for your own needs should an earthquake or a disaster event occur, you need to prepare for your pets. and i have brought with me
11:22 pm
today, some of the things that i have put in my disaster kit to prepare for my animal's needs to make sure that i am ready should something happen and i need to shelter at home. >> what are some of the things that people should have in their home after an earthquake or other emergency to help take care of their tasks and take care of themselves. >> i took the liberty of bringing you some examples. it includes a first aid kit for your pet and you can also use it for yourself and extra meds for your pets. and water container that will not tip over. we have got both food, wet food and dry food for your pet. and disposable food container. and water, and your vet records. in addition, we have a collar and some toys.
11:23 pm
>> yeah. to keep oreo busy. >> he needs toys and this is san francisco being a fruity city and come on oreo. this is your dinner, it is patte style chicken dinner with our foody seen here. >> what they say now is that you should have at least a gallon of water and i think that a gallon of water is small amount, i think that maybe more like two gallons of water would be good for you and your pet. >> does the city of animal control or any other agency help you with your pet after an emergency. >> there is a coalition of ngos, non-governmental organizations led by the department of animal care and control to do disaster planning for pets and that includes the san francisco spca. the paws group, the vet sos, pets unlimited. and we all have gotten together
11:24 pm
and have been getting together for over four or five years now to talk about how we can educate the public about being prepared for a disaster as it involves your pets. >> a lot of services. i understand that if you have to leave your home, we are encouraging people to take their pets with them. >> absolutely. we think that that is a lesson that we concerned from karina, if you are being evacuated you should take your pet with you. i have a carrier, and you need to have a carrier that you can fit your pet in comfortably and you need to take your pet with you when you were evacuated. >> i am going to thank you very much for joining us and bringing oreo today. and i am go
11:25 pm
11:26 pm
11:27 pm
11:28 pm
11:29 pm
11:30 pm
11:31 pm
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
11:39 pm
11:40 pm
11:41 pm
11:42 pm
11:43 pm
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
>> the meeting will come to order. regular meeting of the government and oversight committee for december 3, 2015. i am supervisor yee chair of the committee. to my left is supervisor christensen and to my left-left is supervisor breed. the committee clerk is erica. the committee would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv who recorded each of our meetings and make the transcripts available online. madam clerk any announcements? >> please make

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on